i think it's pretty obvious that the transition did not go as smoothly as was intended
actually does reflect the status quo wrt Django, which is in fact slowing adoption down quite a bit. 2/
-
-
I won't speculate anymore, but would love to hear from them. 3/3
-
django has been single-codebase py2+py3 for years. it uses a modified bundled version of the six library
-
also, a huge blocker on single-codebase was just waiting for both py2.5 and py3.1 to phase out
-
targeting 2.7 and 3.3/3.4+ is orders of magnitude easier than 2.5+ and 3.0+
-
also honestly it seems a little obnoxious to drop "hey this didn't go so well" eight years in, like it hadn't occurred to anyone
-
and then cite docs unchanged since 3.0 and one of the most easily-ported features
-
even the string changes aren't that big of a problem, since most py2 codebases try to be careful about bytes/text anyway
-
it's just a sprinkling of microscopic issues you wouldn't think about, like a class named "nonlocal" (now a keyword in py3)
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Django is 2/3 in single codebase and has been for years. So, um, lolwut?
-
some of what I said was wrong, but a lot was pointing at an earlier timeframe.
-
Meanwhile people who read manufactured-controversy pieces about it are prob still on Py1.5.
-
"new-style classes" were fatal mistake, y'know. Or would've been if Medium and Twitter existed back then.
-
you're not asking me, but I think new-style classes were great; I'm talking about compat and NSC had it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.