Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Rubin Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Subject: Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi. Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 18:03:15 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 20 Message-ID: <87ego7s3e4.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> References: <55185E5D.5080604@animats.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="bda44be170c76b3ef6d23fecd204a8fa"; logging-data="4715"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19FDMf7ymOPcD2FfPHJsnh9" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:V+xStgQfCacEuRAvB+3GV34Ar/M= sha1:xn/3V4+MPvlP34J0s0nbR6BSFI0= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:88298 Ben Finney writes: > Why are you discussing it as though Python 3 is at fault? What do you > expect to change *about Python 3* that would address the perceived > problem? Whose responsibility is it to do that? Those questions seem unfair to me. Nagle posted an experience report about a real-world project to migrate a Python 2 codebase to Python 3. He reported hitting more snags than some of us might expect purely from the Python 3 propaganda ("oh, just run the 2to3 utility and it does everything for you"). The report presented info worth considering for anyone thinking of doing a 2-to-3 migration of their own, or maybe even choosing between 2 and 3 for a new project. I find reports like that to be valuable whether or not they suggest fixes for the snags. Meanwhile here's a very well informed post about headaches with Python 3's treatment of Unicode. I had always thought Python 3's main benefit was to fix the headaches of Python 2's somewhat accidental treatment of Unicode. But it looks like Python 3 introduces its own Unicode headaches. http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2014/5/12/everything-about-unicode/