Hacker News Reader

Comment by RedCrowbar | Hacker News Reader

https://twitter.com/vlasovskikh/status/801720613312364544

There is a clear selection bias here, which is revealed in the first response (unless that was what you're pointing people towards). IDEs are a lot more common on Windows, which has the best adoption rate. The data from the two sources in that comment point towards a large majority of users still using 2.7, which agrees with my experience (which is in the scientific community). The number one reason being that there is no incentive. There is a lot of that attitude is common, "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". At this point we need to recognize that python2.7 isn't going to die anytime soon, unless there is a drastic change.

While the claim of selection bias in JetBrains' survey may be argued, it is still a valid data source, which is what the gp was asking for.

Also, your anecdotal data is arguably biased as well.

My take is that many sources, including the ones linked to in the tweet's replies point to solid growth in Python 3 adoption. Python3 might not have overtaken Python 2 overall, but it's very far from being "dead".

>While the claim of selection bias in JetBrains' survey may be argued, it is still a valid data source, which is what the gp was asking for.

No, I asked for a representative data source (representative was implied: a biased data source is as good as no data source at all).

>My take is that many sources, including the ones linked to in the tweet's replies point to solid growth in Python 3 adoption. Python3 might not have overtaken Python 2 overall, but it's very far from being "dead".

I wasn't making the point that Python 2 is dead, in fact quite the opposite. I'm saying that with this many users the adoption rate is too slow. There is no real reason for people to switch. Until there is that incentive Python 2 will not die.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com