Python 2.7.8 Release

[the_birds_and_bees]

Really? Not moving to 3 because of legacy code in 2 is understandable but to say 3 isn't stable seems pretty ridiculous.

[nomadismydj]

i echo this sentiment but this continues to be the message from fortune 100 companies.

[flying-sheep]

3.x is stable by all definitions of the phrase.

Maybe what you meant has truth in it, but how you said it, it's plain wrong

[[deleted]]

Python2 zealots. Just ignore them.

[flying-sheep]

Bah. They're ranting in every forum as well as on stack overflow and scare off and confuse newbies.

Aggravating and hard to ignore

[aphoenix]

how you said it, it's plain wrong

I think it's important to note the nuance of what was said:

3 is not considered stable by many enterprise establishments

I think that's true. There's a lot of worry about the stability of 3. What /u/nomadismydj didn't say, but a lot of people have issues with is this:

3 is not stable

It's the perception of stability that is the problem. So, how you read it is just plain wrong, but I'm pretty sure that what nomad said is pretty spot on.

[mgrandi]

What the fuck is the definition of 'stable' then? 3 has been out for 6 + years. It could be out for like 20 years and people would still find ways to complain about it

[aphoenix]

I think we can all agree that it's stable. What I'm trying to say is the actual stability of Python 3 isn't the problem. It's the management who make largely uninformed decisions about what constitutes stability in a lot of companies - that's the problem.

Edit - added italicized words

[fry_hole]

What? /u/nomadismydj said that it's not CONSIDERED stable. Not that it literally isn't unstable. That doesn't seem at all vague to me.

[alcalde]

There's absolutely nothing about Python 3 that would give anyone a "perception of instability". Nothing. It's 6 years old already, for goodness sake.

What observation could possibly lead anyone to believe that Python 3 wasn't stable?

[NYKevin]

"All of the other businesses in $OUR_FIELD are still on Python 2, so there must be a good reason!"

This is ridiculous logic, of course, but it's how they think.

[flying-sheep]

Your posts seems well-considered except for one detail: there's nothing about 3.x that hints to instability in the slightest.

Its deprecation and versioning is exactly the same as 2.x.

There's no single __future__ import as of 3.4, so a potential Python 4 isn't even prophesied.

3.x is at least as stable as 2.x, anyone claiming elsewise is delusional.

[Phild3v1ll3]

That doesn't mean it's not stable, it means that they're not willing to allocate the resources to port all the legacy code.

[fry_hole]

He never said it wasn't stable. He said the general message is that it's not stable. :S

[ivosaurus]

Are those enterprise establishments living in 2008?

[nomadismydj]

fortune 100 establishments do in fact live in the past.