Using Python 2

[Steve D'Aprano]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017 12:23 am, Leam Hall wrote:

> Various responses in no particular order:
> 
> On 09/08/2017 09:57 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>> I've heard a lot of FUD about the Python 3 transition, but this one is
>> new to me.  What is it that CompSci folks want that developers don't
>> want, that ruined Python 3?
> 
> 
> It's not FUD if it's true. Calling it FUD without checking is, um, FUD.
> The phrase was "many of the changes in Python 3 are theoretically based,
> cleaning up of how Python does things to make them fit with what
> Computer Science teaches."

Such as what?

Got any examples of these changes driven by Comp-Sci theory?


[...]
> If Python 2 has bugs that aren't going to be fixed, 

Eventually, when Python 2.7 is end-of-lifed.

> then let's ask the 
> question. If Python 3 was a total re-write that is not backwards
> compatible then it likely has some of the same bugs (due to same coders)

No, that doesn't follow. For starters, much of the code base is different, so
bugs in one may not exist in the other. Also, Python 3 will continue to get bug
fixes for many years to come, long after 2.7 is end-of-lifed.


> plus new ones. If Python 3 is not a total re-write then why break
> compatibility?

To avoid building up excess cruft in the language.

To fix design mistakes which cannot be fixed without a backwards-incompatible
change.


> To say Python 2 is old is true. What does it matter though? Unless
> Python 3 provides a business value for spending lots of time and money
> to change then "old" doesn't matter.

Indeed you are correct. I know of companies still using Python 1.5.


> If you want to encourage people to move from Python 2 to 3 then continue
> to help answer questions when they are Python 2 based.

As we do. Even if some of us can't help evangelising for Python 3 when they do
so :-)





-- 
Steve
“Cheer up,” they said, “things could be worse.” So I cheered up, and sure
enough, things got worse.