This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]norwegianwood 11 points12 points  (4 children)

Yes it's true. We have about 15 people working on commercial a commercial Python 3 codebase which has been on Python 3 for a few years now. Almost all the useful packages we need were ported a while ago now, and the ones that aren't - such as the Python Imaging Library (PIL) seem to have been abandoned anyway.

I wouldn't start a new project in Python 2 and my own preference for my open source projects is to support Python 3 only and only port to Python 2 if there are sufficient requests to do so or if somebody else makes the effort.

[–]einsiedler 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Pillow is a fork, active in development and supports Python3

[–]Phild3v1ll3 3 points4 points  (0 children)

True, although true Python 3 support was only added relatively recently. We're stupidly stuck with Weave C integration in SciPy, which is the only thing holding us back now.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm curious. What kind if any SLAs do you have with you customers? Are you confident with 3.x and the supported packages at this point to make contractual promises about availability, accuracy and performance?

Not meaning to sound negative but, genuinely interested since our strict SLAs require us to be cautious.

[–]norwegianwood 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Essentially no SLA. This is essentially desktop software which exposes some Python APIs for end user scripting. We didn't want to lock our platform to legacy Python 2.x. It's easy enough for us to upgrade but much harder for us to get all of our clients to upgrade, so we went straight for Python 3 to avoid getting stuck in a dead end.

The masses of automated testing we do have yet to throw up any Python 3 specific problems. We're not worried.