

Py3k(python3) more than one year on - 0.96 % packages supporting py3k. - illumen
http://renesd.blogspot.com/2009/09/py3kpython3-more-than-one-year-on-096.html

======
brazzy
It's often said that Java has been held back (feature-wise) by Sun's obsession
with downward compatibility. This article indicates that it may be preferable
to the alternative...

What's the point of new features when hardly anyone uses them because not only
their own code but also most of the important libraries don't support the new
version?

~~~
amix
I don't think backwards compatibility is the problem. The problem with Py3k is
that it does not offer any vital features, it requires a lot work to port to
Py3k (to top that off Py3k is slower than Python 2.x).

The only way I can see Py3k successful is if there are clear advantages to
move to Py3k, like improved performance or extra vital features (like
improvement of inline functions (lambda)). The improved performance is also a
big question as teams like PyPy and Unladen Swallow are working on improving
Python 2.6 and not Python3k.

~~~
eru
> extra vital features (like improvement of inline functions (lambda))

I would not consider this a vital feature. You can already nest arbitrary
functions, you just have to name them. However Tail-Call-Optimization would be
a vital feature. (Alas, it's not going to happen.)

~~~
masklinn
I'm pretty sure the improvement he was talking about is "full" anonymous
functions (w/ multiple statements & everything).

~~~
scott_s
And I'm pretty sure eru understood that, which is why he pointed out you can
achieve the same functionality by naming them.

~~~
eru
Yes. And if you want multiple statements, you are either doing site-effects
(evil) or using variables inside your closure, so you might as well name it,
too.

~~~
masklinn
> you are either doing site-effects (evil)

Uh not necessarily, and even if you are there are many situations where it's
interesting and useful.

> or using variables inside your closure, so you might as well name it, too

Does not follow.

------
garnet7
Python 3 can't just be better than 2.x to get those package distributions
ported, it's gotta be _substantially_ better.

One way to make it substantially better is to get the new
[Distribute](<http://pypi.python.org/pypi/distribute>) finished and fast-
tracked into 3.x (Distribute is a replacement for setuptools).

~~~
masklinn
The first important step is the rewrite/refactoring/improvement of distutils,
which is going on right now.

~~~
garnet7
Well, I hope that whichever Yaks need to be shaved in the process (PEPs
written, approved, implemented, whatever) get shaved expeditiously so things
can move forward.

------
rbanffy
The article also indicates we seldom use about 99.04% of all packages
available.

It's a believable number

------
tvon
Well, the topic in #python includes "It's too early to use Python 3.x".

