wiz21z

It all depends on what you mean by "value".

If value means helping the marketing team at apple to sell more useless (but admitedly super-technological) phones, then count me out :-)

Or at least, we should teach butchery to kids. That way, they'd know what it means to actually kill to eat. The only thing I've ever killed is a lobster, and it helps a lot to relate to what you have on your plate...

I've ported a 100KLOC project. Took me a week or so to do it. But it took me months to iron out the last bugs. Had no problem with libraries (so I just had to support the language)

Fact is 2to3 is nice but it doesn't give you any guarantee about its code coverage. So you go almost just as fast working by hand.

But the lack of guarantees, that makes working in production very dangerous.

Tried to support 2 and 3 at the same time, but that's just too exhausting and error prone (one has to check in both python2 and python3)

Projects with 100% test coverage don't exist, spare time project have even less test coverage.

For me unicode was the driver to change. And it paid off. And I think that's the only P3 feature that actually improves expressivity (now I can clearly express unicode strings). The yield stuf, etc. is fine but nothing /that/ impressive.

For performance, forget PyPy, a 5x/7x improvements is not enough : you still can't write high perf code with that. If PyPy was 50x faster than CPython, that would be something.

So basically, after a lot of efforts I'd say write Python3 code because it helps Python or because you use unicode. Any other reason seems a bit weak to me. And that's sad, I've bet on Python 4 years ago and it didn't evolve much (it surely became very stable, which is not funny but damn useful!).

I guess the point of the 2-3 war is precisely that : 2 and 3 are different but not different enough... So people have hard time to make a choice.