Why won't you switch to Python 3.x? [closed]

Answer 1

The operating system I use the most, Debian, does not have a Python 3 package, not even in the "unstable" (brand new) branch. Unless I compile it myself (which is quite 20th century), it means no Python3 to me.

I bet it is the same issue with many operating systems.

Answer 2

For many of the python-based questions here, people are giving solutions that simply do not work in python 3.x.

I think you answered your own question here. The lack of backwards compatibility makes 3.0 a much harder sell than a seamless upgrade because you have to adjust your thinking and discard some programming techniques to use the new version.

Call me back when they have an upgrade script for my brain.

Answer 3

[Edit 03/10/2014: This answer is now out-of-date. Django has supported Python 3 for some time.]

[However, it must also be noted that the django third-party packages and extensions used in many Django projects are in various stages of Python 3 compatibility implementation. More details can be found in Django packages website which tracks the statuses of various projects.]

Django has not moved over to 3.0. That is all I need to know.

Related Questions

• Will Python 3.0’s backwards-incompatibility affect adoption?
• Is Python 3 a good starting point when you want to learn Python?
• If I’m going to learn Python, should I learn 2.x or just jump into 3.0?
• Who’s Using Python 3.0?
• Python Version for a Newbie
• Is it worth learning Python 2.6 with 3.0 coming?

Most of the answers in these questions echo the same sentiments. Aside from Django, too many frameworks/libraries - WxPython, PyGame, Django, etc - have still not adopted it. I'm sure as hell not making the move until they do.

Answer 4

If you are interested to move to Py3k one interesting way would be to write code in Py3k and use a 3to2 script which is being written now as a part of Google Summer of code project, on the lines of 2to3 script.

Answer 5

3rd party tools and libraries. I'm having trouble making some things work under 2.6 (not a LOT of trouble, mind you, but some.)

As I see it, the ecosystem is one of Python's biggest strengths, and going to 3.0 at this point chucks a lot of that out the window. (In a year, I'm sure the story will be totally different.)

(Obviously, there's a chicken and egg problem here, but fortunately it's not my problem to solve, so I'll stay with 2.6 for a while.)

Answer 6

Unfortunately, for the same reason as most others have said - 3rd party libraries still not having been made 3.0 compatible. For this reason, as well as that some GNU/Linux distributions (Ubuntu in my case) still comes with Python 2.6, I can't completely throw 2.x out the window yet.

However, the change to 3.0 is not a major one IMO. Except for "print" being a function and the new string formatting system, it's really more or less the same as before.

In fact, I find that most of my old scripts (those that do not depend on 3.0 incompatible 3rd party libraries) will work flawlessly in 3.0 after I update all the prints and string formatting. In some cases I've also had to change some module names (specifically stuff from the "email" module), but other than that nothing major.

Also, all the scripts I have updated for 3.x compatibility so far still seem to work flawlessly in 2.6 (but not older 2.x of course, as they lack the new 3.x syntax).