On 16/03/2015 00:25, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 15/03/2015 20:59, Fetchinson . wrote:
On 3/15/15, Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/03/2015 19:05, John Nagle wrote:
On 3/14/2015 1:00 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
John Nagle <na...@animats.com>:
I'm approaching the end of converting a large system from Python
2
to Python 3. Here's why you don't want to do this.
A nice report, thanks. Shows that the slowness of Python 3 adoption is
not only social inertia.
Marko
Thanks.
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.
John Nagle
This https://python3wos.appspot.com/ says differently.
A "package supporting python 3" is not equivalent to a "package not
introducing new bugs in its python 3 version relative to python 2" and
is also not equivalent to a "package working without issues on python
3".
Cheers,
Daniel
So the packages increase their test coverage as the bugs get discovered
and fixed. Or are you saying that a mere nine years isn't a long enough
time period to do an exercise like this?
Mark, did you read John's post or just respond with a knee-jerk defence of
Python 3? I quote:
To damn right it's a knee jerk reaction to defend Python 3, in response
to the pathetic "Python 3 is still a long way from being ready for prime
time, though". Schumachers!!!
"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."
So I suggest that either the Python 3 core devs stop any development
work and concentrate on fixing bugs in abandonware, or help out in the
fork to Python 2.8. Which is the preferred option?
Clearly a mere nine years is NOT long enough. Which is probably why the
Python core developers are supporting Python 2 until 2020. Library authors
will presumably be offering Python 2 compatibility for even longer.
Nine years is far too long a time period to claim that people are stuck.
If people spent more time writing and testing code and less time
bleating, they'd probably be looking forward to Python 4 by now.
Further many core developers are refusing to do any work on 2.7. As far
as they're concerned it's dead. If you also consider that much code was
backported from 3.x to 2.6/7 I think anybody having the audacity to
complain should be taken out at dawn and shot. After their fair trial
that is.
The one area where I do have much sympathy is with the people sending
data down the wire. This is being addressed (I'm too lazy right now to
look up the PEP) but with that out of the way as far as I see it the
final excuse has gone, port your code or simply shut up.
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
