Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Fixing the entirely broken string/bytes mess up in Python 2 was worth it by itself. For bonus points old style classes went away, and the language got a significant speed boost. And now it’s not going to die a slow death, choking on the past poor decisions it’s burdened with.

Trivializing that by suggesting it was some offhand, unneeded solution to a problem that some dreamy “language designer” thought up is at best completely and utterly ignorant.

Also maintenance, in all forms, is work. That does involve updating your systems from time to time.

> and the language got a significant speed boost.

I have not seen a clear win in real benchmarks. 3 was slower for the longest time, and nowadays it seems head to head depending on the project.

Check out https://speed.python.org/comparison/. It’s not significantly faster, but it’s getting more so.

I don't know how to say head-to-head more than this graph


I would say this makes it a bit clearer:


Maybe it's work if you get paid by lines of code and JIRA tickets but programming is just a tool for me to my real work done. So I would like to spend as little time programming as I possibly can.

Nobody here gets paid per Jira ticket or line of code.

Sure, if you don’t program and just write ad-hoc (unmaintainable?) scripts then the transition is annoying. But it’s also not required. Don’t re-write your scripts, you can always ensure that Python 2 is present.

But if you’re maintaining a project that uses the wider ecosystem, then you are at the mercy of that ecosystem. And, at the time of the decision to make Python 3, that ecosystem was saying “Python 2 has a lot of horrible legacy decisions that make it harder than it should be to write good code”.

Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact