Using Python 2

[Rick Johnson]

On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 9:41:55 AM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
> False dichotomy. [Python3 was] not a total rewrite, but it
> fixes certain long-standing issues. Compatibility had to be
> broken in order to change certain behaviours.

Namely: maintenance programmers who dared to take a break!

> > 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.
>
> Of course. And the biggest business value, in a lot of
> cases, is that suddenly now your application works for ALL
> the world's people.

Oh please! As if all problems in computing can be reduced to
mere localization issues.

> We've heard the old story of "the Python 3 migration will
> drive people away from Python" many, MANY times before. I
> don't know of any success stories where someone brags about
> how easy it was to port their entire codebase to a
> different language,

They don't port their entire code base, no, they keep the
old Python2 code base and write the new stuff in some other
language. Why would any rational person put themselves in a
position to experience the same backwards incompatibility
crappola when Python4 is thrust upon them? Remind me again:
what's the definition of insanity?

Can you imagine the rage that someone will feel after
climbing up the migration hill from Python2 to Python3, and
then suddenly, hearing the announcement that it's now time
to migrate to Python4?

The Python language cannot survive two confrontations with
the absurd. One was difficult enough, and the community is
still reeling from it. Introduce a second, and, well, it's
over.