Love to try this out some day, a shame that this isn't in Python 2.
EDIT: Thanks HN, try working in an industry where every new project is in Python 2, and have no intention to move on, before saying "moeve to 3", it doesn't help at all.
This library uses asyncio, which is Python3. What do you expect?
You may be okay to stick with Python 2, but this means you also agree not to expect new features and new libraries. So please don't mention Python 2 to a new library.
https://pythonclock.org/ - 5 Months and 2 days to go. Do not do any new projects in Python 2. There is no technical reason for you to do so. If management is an issue, show them the facts.
Seriously though, why would a company want to start a months long project of moving from python 2 to 3, when their current setup works perfectly, and the project involves the horrifying boring chore of going through every single line of code and making simple changes, and hope that their tests still works, there are no edge cases that crop up due to minor changes in the new version, etc., etc., etc. Seems much more sensible to stick with something that works.
Well, because you're developing against an unsupported runtime. No bug or security updates. If that's fine for you, feel free, otherwise get with the (supported) program.
In addition I don't think you'd have to interrogate every line, depending on your codebase and upstream module support for Python 3. There are tools like:
I would argue I am coding against a stable runtime. No unexpected bugs due to upgrading. No need to worry about upgrading. For many applications, I don't have to worry about security updates. I think for many cases like closed systems that plan to run for years to decades, python 2 is attractive to even new projects.
OK, but please just tell your bosses that their poor decisions to build new software in Python 2 will put your companies at risk of security exploits for the lifetime of the new software you're building in Python 2.
I can almost understand if you have legacy software that your bosses don't want to move to Python 3, but actually building new software in Python 2? It's just crazy and asking for serious problems in the very near future.
Python 2.7 is still maintained, and the last version came out in March IIRC, so there's that.
Lots of big players still use Python 2 (Google being the most prominent), and untold smaller players.
Besides, Windows XP and PHP are also in use, as are 50+ year old COBOL systems, so there's that.
Unless you come in and do the port yourself, many systems are not getting ported anytime soon. RedHat and co will continue to release 2.7 patches for the foreseeable future, long after 2020.
Surely the number of eyes looking at that codebase will vastly diminish though? You may get RH and co backporting massively obvious issues but there will be many other smaller issues that won't be found.
Also Google have golang, which I'd imagine would be their target now, not python 3 (for migrations)
>Surely the number of eyes looking at that codebase will vastly diminish though?
I don't think the "many eyes" theory ever panned out. There are projects used by billions, and on which thousands of other FOSS projects work, and only have like a handful of people working at the codebase (and less catching bugs)
>Also Google have golang, which I'd imagine would be their target now, not python 3 (for migrations)
Not really, Golang was never Google's official/mandated language. Just a language some Googlers made with Google's use cases in mind. Google still uses C++, Java, and Python (plus some Dart). Some things use Golang, but not in some top-down "Googlers shall use Golang" way.
One thing I know of off the top of my head (because I had to deal with it last week) is the gcloud suite of tools for GCP, which will only run with 2.7. Thankfully the various GCP libraries for interacting with the platform do work on Python 3.
In an industry where win95 appears to be the norm (if not VAX!) but not complaining when don't see flashy libraries or tools support.
It does feel good , when some claim support however.
Sorry you’re getting downvoted! It’s amazing how far behind the tools in your industry are, despite Python being the standard tooling language. Proprietary tools are the worst offenders (compared with Blender has been Python 3 only since version 2.5)
For anyone interested, this is the VFX industry reference platform, which is finally hoping to move to Python 3 next year: https://vfxplatform.com/
>Oh please. The EOL on python2 has been massively pre announced.
Which is neither here, nor there. Pre-announcing doesn't give any reason or motive (or funding) for porting large codebases. Many businesses stuck with 2.x will fund 2.x maintenance if the core devs don't do it, and port on their own schedule not on whatever was "pre announced".
> Oh please. The EOL on python2 has been massively pre announced.
Nope, not when new versions of software comes out with Python 2 still, (can't do anything about those licences bought) small studios cannot afford moving/rewriting tools in P2 to 3, not a priority, rather keep P2.
Then complain to the companies you license software from for continuing to build on a soft-deprecated platform. Don't complain to developers for ignoring a platform whose deprecation was announced over a decade ago.
And certainly don't badmouth people who are using the not-deprecated tool as being ok with unstable infra.
> Then complain to the companies you license software from for continuing to build on a soft-deprecated platform.
You think we haven't been doing this? We had a representative from one of these vendors come in to discuss their roadmap, they told us straight up that "We still intend to keep using Python 2".
> Don't complain to developers for ignoring a platform whose deprecation was announced over a decade ago.
Yes, because web dev is the hot tech stuff now, nobody wants to work in a boring sector, so they are not willing to change anything, cycle continues.
> And certainly don't badmouth people who are using the not-deprecated tool as being ok with unstable infra.
I read this sentence twice and I still don't understand what you're trying to say, clarify?
> Not all of us move fast and break things here, unlike the web dev world.
I had to roll my eyes at that one. Fine if your industry is accepting the high risk of using deprecated releases for new software, but don't try to act like upgrading from deprecated software is "moving fast and breaking things". This deprecation has been announced for 6 years. Python 3 was released over a decade ago.
This ain't a new JavaScript built tool -- this is a carefully planned end-of-life situation for a very old piece of technology.
Sure, do that. I'm not a Python fanboy, and there were some issues with how the transition was handled. Move to another language if you have the manpower. I think in in this case, since they claim to not even have the manpower to do some relatively straight-forward migrations from Python 2 -> 3 and/or they have some dependencies on Python2, I'm doubtful that's even an option.
I'm just pointing out that it's a risky move to adopt a soon-to-be-deprecated programming language for new projects, given the potential for security issues that won't be patched. It's the kind of ignorant arrogance that has always bugged me about many companies with non-technical management (please note: these words are not directed at user kgrave given that this appears an edict from above at his company, and he's unable to change it).
You may be okay to stick with Python 2, but this means you also agree not to expect new features and new libraries. So please don't mention Python 2 to a new library.