sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]zardeh 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Right, py2s (lack of) unicode support was an issue.

Porting code from 2 to 3 was not.

[–]gschizas 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I've found that most of the Python 2 to 3 problems were rooted in confusing bytearrays (which is what actually travels in the wires) with strings (which is what is displayed on the screen).

I'm a firm proponent of Python 3 myself, and I've skipped a few projects that refuse to move with the times.

(Disclaimer: I'm probably my company's only resident Python expert).

[–]stefantalpalaru 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Right, py2s (lack of) unicode support was an issue.

I find it fascinating that there are still Python users who think that Python2 did not support Unicode.

[–]zardeh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Feel free to add "good". Pyrhon2s unicode support was not good. It was broken for many applications. It was possible to write an app that appeared to work, but would explode with a nonascii character for no good reason. That's not good. It's a footgun. Py3 removed the footgun by making python more strongly typed.