"There is no sane business reason to spend 100s of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars worth of engineering time to port to Python 3. You might as well ask someone to port their entire codebase to Ruby. Except, that would be cheaper."
* Language itself is nicer and generally more consistent than py2; caveat: also more complex
* Ecosystem is now fragmented and discombobulated
* Byte strings or whatever are more annoying than in any other programming language I've encountered, hard to say whether this is an improvement or regression compared to Python 2. I get more runtime errors, for sure.
* Breaks a lot of old, useful snippets and packages; they are no longer relevant, but you only find out they are broken when you try to run or import them
Who ever it is downvoting this - it's the first sentence of the linked article. I'm reposting it here to show the irony, given that Python 3 turns out to have been the foundation for making Python 3 one of the worlds most popular programming languages, experiencing massive3 growth.
In 2014 it sure felt the way the author portrayed it. It's better now.
Python 3 was, probably, worth it. But not by a lot.
Please, please, let there be no giant, break-the-world, python4.
"There is no sane business reason to spend 100s of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars worth of engineering time to port to Python 3. You might as well ask someone to port their entire codebase to Ruby. Except, that would be cheaper."