On 12.02.2015 12:25, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Fabien<fabien.mauss...@gmail.com>:
>... what a coincidence then that a huge majority of scientists
>(including me) dont care AT ALL about unicode.
You shouldn't, any more than you care about ASCII or 2's-complement
encoding. Things should just work.
And they do! Since almost one year in writing scientific python code,
not a single problem. I wouldnt even know about issues if i didnt read
some posts here.
>But since scientists are not paid to rewrite old code, the scientific
>world is still stuck to python 2. It's a pitty, given how easy it is
>to write py2/py3 compatible scientific tools.
What's a pity is that Python3 chose to ignore the seamless transition
path. It would have been nice, for example, to have all Python 3 code
explicitly mark its dialect (a .py3 extension, a magic import or
something) and then allow legacy Py2 code and Py3 code coexist the same
way C and C++ can coexist.
But this was exactly my point! Today in 2015 it's incredibly easy to
write py2/py3 code for a scientist. The whole SciPy track has done the
transition. Not an issue anymore either, for me at least (python
youngster ;-)
Fabien
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
