The problem is that both support unicode and 2 vs 3 unicode handling are just two different ways to do it. Which places Python3 firmly in the 'technological churn' category, rather than true technical innovation.

I'd probably agree 3.x is more Pythonic in this regard, but I think it was an ill-advised move. Plenty of reasoning in my last response as to why.

Why not go ahead and use Python3, you may find it works for you. For me, there's a long tail of libraries that don't exist there, and frankly following the core dev teams' example- we should all act in our own best interests. I'm far more productive in 2.x.

I may eventually move to 3.x, but it will have to be based on its merits. Rather than dogma, salesmanship or propaganda. Today it isn't even close to 2.x and we're nearing 7 years since 3.0 was released.

Unlike most things in life such as updating some software package, the "latest version" of a programming language isn't always in your best interests. I think this is a hard mental barrier to break down, especially people coming into Python now.

But I would always recommend learning/using 2.x, not only is it easier to build cool things with it (the whole point), but you have to learn 2.x. You can avoid 3 entirely, without any issue whatsoever.

Are you using Python 2.X because you are maintaining existing code, or because Python 3 is just plain unsuitable for what you're trying to do?

I hear a lot of complaints about Python 3, but in my (limited) experience, 3 is better than 2.X in practically every situation I've experienced. But I've never had to maintain anybody's old code in it, either.

> Today it isn't even close to 2.x

So are you saying that it's clearly "pulled ahead" in the race? Or that Python 3.x is a significant regression? Your "technological churn" comment makes it seem like you think it's just treading water, which I would interpret to mean a lack of progress vs. a step forward (or back).

To avoid str() calls with concatenation, use % formatting:

    '%s %s' % ('hello', 'world')

Avoiding these implicit behaviors helps avoid bugs; it's worth it.

I'd recommend going for Python 3 unless there's a specific reason (library) keeping you on 2.

I'd recommend:

    '{} {}'.format('hello', 'world')

But yes - either way - it solves the need to do str() when concatenating.

I never understood the need for the new style of formatting, or the advantage. Fortunately % formatting is no longer getting deprecated.

The only downside that I've come across is when you do something like:

  "%s %s" % blah

If a bug causes `blah` to be a string (rather than a tuple or a list), it will attempt to expand the string, possibly giving a confusing error.

> sigh I really miss Perl's implicit behaviors sometimes.

I never had too much of an issue with Perl's implicit behaviours, but it enables some really lazy programming, even from (otherwise) smart people that are gung-ho about Modern Perl. E.g.:

  sub { map { "$_ $_[0]" } @{shift->[0]} }

(Note: I have actually seen people think that this was an ok way to code, even as they tried to champion things like MooseX::Declare.)

There's also stuff like this[1] for Perl + Unicode. :^P

[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6162484/why-does-modern-...