Re:Porting a historic Python2 module to Python3
by mikebenfield on Thursday July 27, 2017 @04:25PM
(#14869128)
> They added Python 3 features to Python 2 over the years to encourage adoption of Python 3 as the standard. It worked.
Did it really? My impression was the opposite: the fact that so much of Python 3 became available in Python 2 made people feel like there was no point in moving to Python 3.
Re:Porting a historic Python2 module to Python3
by viraptor on Thursday July 27, 2017 @06:17PM
(#14870144)
It worked both ways. Some new features were ported back, some could be ported, but explicitly weren't to encourage migration. On the other side, things like the "u" prefix got re-added to python 3 for compatibility.
There was no backwards compatibility with Python 2 and it had relatively little adoption.
They added Python 3 features to Python 2 over the years to encourage adoption of Python 3 as the standard. It worked.
Now we just need Apple to ship Mac OS with Python 3 instead of 2 as the default and that'll push adoption for developers.