Python 2.7 is pretty much wart-free compared to every other language out there. If the warts were worse than the cost of going to 3.x, everyone would be on 3.x.
This simply isn't true. Inertia is a huge factor - people justify what they currently do but ultimately the real reason they do it is because that is their habit. Habits are more powerful than cost-benefit analyses, as a rule.
Python 3 would need to be outstandingly and unmistakably better than Python 2 to get the kind of traction you speak of. But Python 3 is merely better.
This simply isn't true. Inertia is a huge factor - people justify what they currently do but ultimately the real reason they do it is because that is their habit. Habits are more powerful than cost-benefit analyses, as a rule.
History proves your habit theory is wrong. Over the years the vast majority of Python projects have been migrating to newer versions. I have been using Python since the 1.5.2 days (1999) and only recently have we have seen this phenomenon of large number of production projects not migrating to newer version.
In the past, projects would run on the latest version or the past 2 previous versions. You are always going to have some projects on the bleeding edge while others are going to lag behind. This worked well for well over a decade. Now the majority of projects are on 2.7 and it will be that way until there is a compelling reason to migrate because at the end of the day whether you like it or not cost-benefit analysis do matter.
You appear to be replying to your own misrepresentation of what I said -- I see no other reason why you would feel the need to assert 'cost-benefit analyses do matter'.
0
u/[deleted] May 26 '14
[deleted]