|
|
|
|
|
by PythonicAlpha
4547 days ago
|
|
No, I disagree. So many programs rely on further support for Python 2. When you would end the life of Python 2, I myself would think, if I have to make a switch, should I switch to a more reliable codebase??? (Ruby, maybe -- I don't know enough about Ruby, but I would have a look on it) The reliability is one of Pythons strength and one of the reasons I use it. Take away the reliability and you will loose a lot. You will loose also many friends (like myself). There was a blog post recently and stated an other option: Bring Py2 and Py3 nearer together to make the switch easier -- than more people would willingly move. Some obstacles for moving where removed -- but a little late (e.g. the u"-Syntax was used many times in Py2 (at least outside english speaking countries or where localization is a topic) -- but abandoned in Py3. That was not necessary, but blocked an easy migration, because there are so many positions the code can be in. Now Py3 also supports the syntax and just ignores it ... why was that option not taken in the first place???) and not all. As much I know, there are still major differences when programming C extension libraries .... that makes porting existing libraries unnecessary troublesome. Such things where not recognized early enough and still hamper adoption of Py3. Remove the blocks and you will gain more ground! |
|
I for one never even considered that C extensions would be a serious road block. Which is obvious now that you mention it. And my main point, I've never bothered to research moving to Python 3 because there's no sense of urgency.
If Guido set a date, say Jan 1st 2015, it would remove allot of the apathy we're currently seeing.