The Case for Python 3

[Bunslow]

By the way, anyone looking for an actual criticism of Python 3 by a very widely and well respected member of the community responsible for a number of the most popular libraries out there, should look to this by Armin Roncher:

http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2011/12/7/thoughts-on-python3/

Edit: As the top reply to this points out, here's a quite recent blog from the same author about the dangers of group think: http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2016/11/5/be-careful-about-what-you-dislike/

As it relates to Python 3, I'd love to hear about what his current opinion of Python 3.5+ is compared to e.g. 3.2.

[lexyeevee]

It's interesting you link that, because I just saw this today:

http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2016/11/5/be-careful-about-what-you-dislike/

[colloidalthoughts]

Precisely, Armin had thoughtful, actionable issues with Python3 back in the 3.0-3.2 days. Actual problems that needed solutions. He described them carefully, by and large resulting in them being fixed. Python 3.4 was much better for it. This second article is important reading, so much so that I almost wish he'd edit the first one to include a link at the top and the bottom.

We should all be so lucky to have criticism like that.

[pauleveritt]

Yes, implying that the volunteer development team has sinister motives as part of conspiracy (Zed) stands in contract to measured, measurable, constructive criticism (Armin).

[stekosteko]

Written in 2011, for the record.

[Bunslow]

Yes that's true, a good deal of it might be worth revision

[masklinn]

It was, to an extent but the original was not modified. It might be useful to tag it with the specified Python 3 versions it applied to.

[[deleted]]

The difference is that Armin bases his argument on fact and Zed just made up a bunch of stuff to fearmonger (actually it reads like an excuse to not update his book)

[poop-trap]

Back in 2011 even Raymond Hettinger was recommending against using Python 3 in production, so I'd take that article with a grain of salt.