|
|
|
|
|
|
by cookiecaper
4087 days ago
|
|
|
Mercurial is a large, complicated project, so it makes sense that they'd delay a backend upgrade like Py2->Py3 as long as they can get away with it. It's not representative of the overall ecosystem. That's like arguing that as long as "canaries" like Facebook don't see any reason to move to Ruby or Python for web dev, the rest of us might as well stay on PHP too. There's a large investment in the existing infrastructure that often can't be ignored no matter how compelling the features of the new platform are. The differences between Py2 and Py3 are not substantial enough that it "divides the community in half" in any tangible fashion. Yes, it's possible new software may not take Py2 compatibility into account and you'll need to switch to Py3 to get new stuff, but that's been the plan all along, right? 183 of the 200 most-used libraries are Py3 compatible now, including major systems like SciPy and Django. It's not 2009 anymore, and we should stop talking like it is. Py3 is the way forward and the Python Foundation needs to quickly and firmly deconstruct any sign of flapping on that front if they hope to convert the remaining Py2 holdouts. I believe it would be very damaging for the community if Python backpedaled and said "OK, we know you just spent 7 years investing in the Py3 platform and converting your apps and libs to work on it, but visible projects like Mercurial still don't like it so we decided it wasn't worth it anymore." People don't take time out of their day to make their voices heard unless they're already discontented about something. We shouldn't assume that everyone hates Py3 just because Py3 users are going about their business quietly. |
|
|
I think things will get better when operating systems start to default to Python3.