Ubuntu Still Working On Stripping Python 2

[prodigy_]

necessary

The 3.x changes were completely unnecessary.

[prodigy_]

And I'm sure that PL maintainer doesn't fancy the extra work and time required to maintain old versions just because some programmers can't be bothered to update their code.

Well they can use their language themselves from now then. I don't care anymore. I'll always find something with a sane development model, no worries.

[Pajn]

The 3.x changes were completely unnecessary.

>>> import this
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!

Python 3 follow this much better than Python 2.
If you don't agree with "The Zen of Python" you probably shouldn't use Python.

[benalib]

Python 3 follow this much better than Python 2.
If you don't agree with "The Zen of Python" you probably shouldn't use Python.

+1
easy to code, easy to read, easy to maintain this does matter even when sacrificing a few seconds of execution speed
elegant and simple code is far better than long and complex code for the same result
code maintainbility is a crucial factor

[Scimmia]

Ideally, never. I don't fancy my code being obsoleted at some PL maintainer's whim.

So you expect them to support dead code forever? Do you do this? If someone is using 1.0 of your code and doesn't want to upgrade to the current 4.0, do you do bugfixes for 1.0 5 years later? 10 years later? 20 years later?

[IanS]

I'm glad they are finally doing this; I switched to using Python 3.x for new stuff about 3 years ago. It is a much better version of the language, I can't think of a single feature that broke backwards compatibility that hasn't improved Python. The only downside to it has been how slow a lot of the libraries have been to make the switch, but even on that front most of the important ones have switched to at least a hybrid 2/3 model some years ago now. It was to be expected though as even the main Python developers had projected that it would take about 5-6 years to see a large scale switch from 2 to 3, so on that count at least Fedora and Ubuntu are just about right on schedule.

[hwertz]

Indeed. These arguments people make about not using Python because 3.x is incompatible with 2.x... well, by this same argument, don't use gcc, g++, Java, .Net, Visual BASIC or Visual C, any modern Pascal or COBOL, either because they have all made incompatible changes.

Basically, Python 3.x has been out for years, and Canonical does not plan to drop support for Python 2 (as far as I know). They are just looking to make the included software use Python 3.x rather than 2.x As portable as Python is, it's really not like Python 2.x will become incompatible with systems in the forseeable future either.