> I don't understand why there are so many Python haters out there/here, and why you always feel the need to point out that Python 3 is not backwards compatible... We know.> I've done my fair share of porting stuff from Python 2 to Python 3, and it's certainly work, but in the end it was always worth it.I like Python (both versions). And I've ported 2->3.But no, it was NOT worth it. There's nothing in Python3 that justified the horrific transition process. There are no new capabilities in Python3 that justified their $100billion+ tax on the industry, and there was no reason the transition had to be that bad. Python2 was perfectly capable of supporting Unicode, so "Python3 was necessary because it supports Unicode" is not a valid argument.> Python 3 was released more than a decade ago and it was always clear that (a) you needed to upgrade, (b) the longer you pretend like you're not, the harder it will be, and (c) you can write code that works reasonably well on Py 2 and 3.> Can we stop the whining now?No, because there are too many people still actively denying that "the Python 2->3 transition was badly botched because it made upgrading far more difficult than necessary".What *should* have happened was a set of import __future__ statements so that individual files and libraries could be *gradually* transitioned from Python2 to Python3. That happened with previous versions of Python. A similar kind of thing happens in almost all other programming languages: it is *vital* to allow incremental transitions.Instead, the developers of Python confused "Python the implementation" with "Python the language", so they failed provide an implementation supporting both. This made switching from 2->3 an all-or-nothing situation (ALL your transitive dependencies had to simultaneously convert AND all your files had to convert as well). Normally transitioning involves small incremental costs that can be spread over years. In this case, transition became far more costly & risky than it needed to be. What's especially surprising is that the developers of Python3 are smart & experienced; this is the kind of fundamental mistake that you wouldn't expect such a seasoned team to make.The only other example I can think of in history is "Visual Fred". Microsoft's Visual Basic was once one of the most popular programming languages, but "Visual Basic .NET" (aka "Visual Fred") was grossly incompatible with the "normal" Visual Basic. Many years later about 1/3 switched to the new Visual Basic, 1/3 kept to the old one, and 1/3 had abandoned Visual Basic entirely (if you had to rewrite your software anyway, why use the language from the people you just got burned by?). Visual Basic lost its standing, never to be regained.Python3 is very lucky that it could ride the machine learning wave. It's unlikely to be so lucky if it makes transitions so hard again.Everyone makes mistakes, even very knowledgeable people like the Python3 developers. But we need to *learn* from mistakes, not *deny* them. (Log in to post comments) Python 2->3 transition was horrifically bad Posted Jan 23, 2021 21:10 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Justified Season 2 Complete 720p Web-dll
2ff7e9595c
Comments