On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 9:49 AM Emmanuel Charpentier <emanuel.charpent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I second that. Unless someone presents us with a pressing case of a large > Python 2-based library unportable to Python 3 (and therefore already in a > dead-end), our limited workforce is better employed to maintain our Python 3 > Sage.
I'm just going to endorse this decision yet again based on (for me) new evidence: 1. I personally spent a lot of frustrating time last week working on some Python code to make it worth well with both Python2 and Python3 versions of Sage. The code involved a lot of string manipulation (display of output, sending data over networks connections, etc.), and it was a *very* painful experience with expressions that are valid in both Python2 and Python3, but behave differently in each, etc. I would not wish such work on anybody. 2. Also I read the blog linked to from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22036773 which talks about how Mercurial's decision to support Python2 so long made their support of Python3 more difficult, and continues to have a significant negative impact moving forward. So I endorse Sage developers using their limited resources to move Sage forward to be Python 3 only, and let old versions of Sage provide backward compatibility for people with lots of Python2 Sage code. -- William -- William (http://wstein.org) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CACLE5GAoDc-kxyHJGRKS_hA%2Br_KgLYi2ONZtKdpNRo-VA7UPLA%40mail.gmail.com.
