The Case Against Python 3
The argument is bad but the headline has a point: the value of a language is the quality of its libraries and the community that maintains it. Python 3 seems like a mistake; it fractured the community and sent people away. (to golang, to scala, probably even to ruby).<p>If I were a library maintainer on py2 I would have felt betrayed by py3. Suddenly print is a function? &#x27;yield from&#x27; won&#x27;t be available on the py2 branch? Yikes.<p>C++ is an example of the serious negative consequences of language change. The language has been in flux for decades and the 3rd-party code shows it. Some fraction of good libraries rely on c++14 features. Many others duplicate in library code features that have been available in the language since c++11 or earlier. Boost, the &#x27;missing standard library&#x27; for cpp, is something you either love or hate.<p>The end result for c++ in 2016 is that large shops either (a) don&#x27;t use it or (b) don&#x27;t use the new features and have a slow acceptance process for 3rd-party libs.<p>You can argue that the C community is healthier than C++ -- a ton of important system libraries are written in C and have bindings to tons of languages. Yes, they have problems (openssl cough), yes nobody understands unspecified behavior across compilers, but C has done a good job of supporting lots of platforms and staying relatively stable.<p>Betraying the community can kill a language. Perl learned this lesson the hard way. Let&#x27;s hope python can be saved.