Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

[Kishan Thobhani]

I believe we push towards accepting new paradigms like python 3. If bugs were found on libraries used in older context were probably because there wasn't a need of particular feature. & that is how eventually a software becomes a legacy. There are times when we might want to re-use this library or legacy software, then it make sense to solve the bug as well as port it to new version. Timeline for anything build on top-of-any-language doesn't necessarily have to cope up with evolving language unless needed.  


> On 16-Mar-2015, at 4:53 am, Mario Figueiredo <marfig at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 12:05:21 -0700, John Nagle <nagle at animats.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/14/2015 1:00 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> 
>>   Some of the bugs I listed are so easy to hit that I suspect those
>> packages aren't used much.  Those bugs should have been found years
>> ago.  Fixed, even.  I shouldn't be discovering them in 2015.
>> 
>>   I appreciate all the effort put in by developers in fixing these
>> problems.  Python 3 is still a long way from being ready for prime
>> time, though.
>> 
> 
> What do you mean a long way? Is this a scaremongering tactic? Some
> little FUD to poison the minds of anyone thinking moving to Python 3?
> Or you just chose your words poorly?
> 
> Because 3rd-party packages don't define whether the language is ready
> for production or not and the bugs you found on the standard library
> shouldn't be much different from other bugs found onPython 2 during
> Python 2 prime time.
> 
> What makes you think your anedoctal bugs constitute any sort of
> evidence this programming language isn't ready to be used by the
> public?
> 
> -- 
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list