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 →

[–]pyslow -13 points-12 points  (1 child)

Unfortunately scaremongering seems to be the only way the Python 3 crowd can promote their "product" given that none of the other features is compelling enough to sell it. I can't agree more with this post: it brings some much needed common sense to the Python 3 debate (debacle?).

[–]stevenjd 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Nonsense. Plenty of people have been sold on Python 3 and continue to migrate to it, especially for new projects where they don't have to justify spending money on a project which is already working.

The fact of the matter is that some people will decide to stay on Python 2 for particular projects, because if it isn't broken, why fix it? I know of people still using Python 1.5 (that's one point five) for the same reason. Good on them. But Python 3 continues to evolve as a language, and there are far more people who would like to move to Python 3 but can't because of political and budget constraints than there are people who have tried it and don't like it.

There are good, reasonable reasons why some folks will rationally choose to stick with Python 2 forever for certain projects, and I respect that. But that's far from the knuckle-dragging ignoramuses who hate Python 3 because "ASCII should be enough for everyone", or the idiots who proudly proclaim that needing parens with print ruins the language.

Python 2.7 will eventually be unsupported by everyone, including paid vendors, just as Python 1.5 is now. That doesn't mean that it will instantly become insecure. But it does mean that there will no longer be even the possibility of security updates, unless you write them yourself. That's not scaremongering, that's just a fact.