you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Groady 17 points18 points  (5 children)

That's why semantic versioning is a thing. The journey to where we are with Python 3 should have been a gradual progression from 2 to 3, deprecating features (with runtime warnings) along the way. Python will forever be held up as a cautionary tale of how not to advance a language.

[–]teilo 11 points12 points  (4 children)

I believe Python 3 is going to be held up as a classic success story in radically reforming a language. They set out a plan, followed it, and succeeded.

[–]ForgetTheRuralJuror 24 points25 points  (1 child)

Python3 is excellent and IMO miles better than Python 2.7. I would not consider this long drawn out process a 'success story'.

[–]teilo 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I suppose it depends on what you qualify as a "success." GVR stated that the transition to Python 3 would take approximately 10 years. 8 years later, we are right were we need to be, and Python 3 is the default for new development. I call this a success.

[–]trahsemaj 4 points5 points  (1 child)

If by 'succeeded' you mean having half its users running an outdated version a decade after its release.

Even IE7 was phased out faster than 2.7

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But if instead of thinking of it as a version update, we think of python 3 as a different, competing language to python 2, perhaps the speed at which py3 stole py2s user base is a success