51–60 of 113 posts
I'm confused with the way the "Supported features" section is divided. Does it mean I can only use f''-strings if the target version is 3.5? Why such a limitation?
Serious question: Why would anyone still be doing anything with Python 2.7 except porting the last remnants of their code base to 3.X?
Python 2 is like FORTRAN. It might not be sexy anymore but it's not going anywhere.
Serious question: Why would anyone still be doing anything with Python 2.7 except porting the last remnants of their code base to 3.X?
I am not a Python developer, but thanks for not using the unnecessary term "transpiler".
Serious question: Why would anyone still be doing anything with Python 2.7 except porting the last remnants of their code base to 3.X?
Most shared-hosting services don't support a reasonable version of Python 3 yet. HostGator still has Python 3.2, the "maximally incompatible" version.
Serious question: Why would anyone still be doing anything with Python 2.7 except porting the last remnants of their code base to 3.X?
Because it's going to be stable for the next N years. Python 2 is like FORTRAN. It might not be sexy anymore but it's not going anywhere.
Except Fortran is, and is going to be, further developed. (So, if a new useful programming concept appears, or a major design mistake is discovered, it always can be patched.)
Python 2 is going to be abandoned in 2020. Python 3 will supersede it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, but this has been a very long transition. There has been lots of time to evolve to 3.x. Has the primary barrier been the slow transition of library dependancies? I'd really like to understand this from a technology transition management standpoint. If you'll allow a strained analogy, the 2.7 to 3.x transition appears in retrospect like an exercise in herding cats, because the transition was done using cat-herding…
Asking this question without disqualifying the answer "No breaking changes whatsoever" usually just generates a bunch of different ways of phrasing that.
K&R C no longer compiles. Not that the C to C++14 transition is what I would call an example of greatness, but it is somewhere along the success spectrum.
Seriously, you will someday need to transition your customer base. How do you plan to do it?
Serious question: Why would anyone still be doing anything with Python 2.7 except porting the last remnants of their code base to 3.X?
"Why don't you just rewrite it in X?" Because Python 3.X is not backwards compatible and we have millions of lines of production code in Python 2.X.
I believe the common subset of Python 2 and 3 was created to ease that transition.
Serious question: Why would anyone still be doing anything with Python 2.7 except porting the last remnants of their code base to 3.X?
I hate it because Python2 is a flaming garbage heap, and 2.7 is what happens when you piss on a flaming garbage heap to put it out, whereas Python 3 is actually a nice language to work in, but until OS distributions get their act together on the Python front, some stuff is going to continue sucking.
Serious question: Why would anyone still be doing anything with Python 2.7 except porting the last remnants of their code base to 3.X?
Thank you for signing up to help in the porting effort for FreeCAD and Pyspread to Python 3. Free software projects depend on volunteer contributors like you.
Just to put a stake in the ground, when did FreeCAD start? When did 3.0 come out, along with the announced end-of-life date for 2.7?