The real problem with Python 3 - no business case for conversion (was "I strongly dislike Python 3")

[Stefan Behnel]

Steven D'Aprano, 05.07.2010 08:31:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:34:04 -0700, sturlamolden wrote:
>
>> Using Python 2.x for new
>> projects is not advisable (at least many will think so), and using 3.x
>> is not possible. What to do? It's not a helpful situation for Python.
>
> That's pure FUD.
>
> Python 2.7 will be supported longer than the normal support period for
> versions 2.6, 2.5, 2.4, ... so if you have a new project that requires
> libraries that aren't available for 3.1, then go right ahead and use 2.7.
> By the time 2.7 is no longer supported (probably around the time 3.4
> comes out?), the library situation will be fixed.
>
> Those 3.1 features that can be backported to 2.x have been, specifically
> to reduce the pain in porting 2.7-based applications to 3.x. Feature-
> wise, 2.7 is designed to ease the transition from the 2.x series to the
> 3.x series. Claiming that it's not advisable to use 2.7 is simply
> nonsense.

Not to forget about the 2to3 tool. If you write code for 2.6 or 2.7 now, 
you can actually port it automatically and continuously, and do the final 
switch when you think it's time. So both choices (2 or 3) are real and 
available.

Stefan