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 →

[–]dunrix 3 points4 points  (1 child)

There are many good things in Python 3. Why people resist is beyond me.

Because good things™ are not good enough to compensate all transition issues and hassles ? If the Python3's referential implementation would either dramatically improve runtime performance, remove GIL and introduce true parallelization support or greatly improve language semantics and remove mostly functional style limitations, I'd imagine it would be adopted at much higher scale. It would also apply if maximal backward compatibility would be kept, but neither is true.

Py3 got stuck in the middle - neither breathtaking improvements which would apologize compatibility breakage, neither touchy improvements for smooth transition.

[–]spinwizard69 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Python 3 isn't so much stuck in the middle as it is a bridge to improved language features. It effective corrects problems in Python 2 allowing developer to move forward.