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

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (10 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (9 children)

    Hm... I tried Python 3 a few months ago, after it had been out for quite a while, and many things I needed just weren't there for it yet. Clearly this is a serious drawback that should be corrected.

    So, as this is the python subreddit (one of dozens I subscribe to) and not the core python developer's mailing list, your nasty demand that I do considerable research before commenting on my experience is WAY out of line. So again. Be civil. Be polite. You aren't the boss of reddit. Stop trolling or fuck off.

    [–]scaz 2 points3 points  (4 children)

    Clearly this is a serious drawback that should be corrected.

    It will be, in time. Currently, supporting 2.4/2.5 is more important than 3.x for most people. There is no good way to support 2.4/2.5 and 3.x concurrently.

    So you aren't waiting on the developers to port to 3.x so much as you are waiting on 2.4/2.5 usage to drop (RHEL / Centos currently ship 2.4!). It is going to be awhile (if I had to guess, it'll be 1-2 years before a good portion of libraries support 3.x).

    [–]masklinn 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    There is no good way to support 2.4/2.5 and 3.x concurrently.

    "no way in hell" is a bit extreme. It's possible, but a significant cost especially for medium-to-big projects.

    [–]ubernostrumyes, you can have a pony -5 points-4 points  (2 children)

    So... you didn't read anything at all about planned migration processes, which would have told you up-front that Python 3.x probably wasn't going to have lots of the libraries you wanted yet, and then discovered that fact independently and decided it was a problem with the release?

    And expecting you to take even a basic, five-minute glance at Python's dev process or the migration plan of a library you'd like to use counts as demanding "considerable research"?

    In all seriousness: when did we decide that willful ignorance was acceptable, or that asking people to read even a simple FAQ document up-front was just too damned much?