== The time to be compatible with both Python 2 and Python 3 is past [[Pete Zaitcev https://zaitcev.livejournal.com/]] recently made his program [[Slasti https://github.com/zaitcev/slasti]] run under Python 3. In [[his LJ entry https://zaitcev.livejournal.com/248363.html]], he said this about the work: > Overall, the biggest source of issues was not the py3 model, but > trying to make the code compatible. I'm not going to do that again if > I can help it: either py2 or py3, but not both. For all that I've had plenty of issues with Python 3, I wholeheartedly agree with Pete Zaitcev's view here; ~~it's time to abandon compatibility with Python 2~~, especially for programs instead of packages, unless you have a compelling reason otherwise. If you want to move code to Python 3, just do that, don't try to make your code work on both. A clean break will make your life better. Back in the old days, when Python 3 was just starting to spread, it made sense to be 2/3 cross compatible even if it was a bit of a pain and added odd contortions to your code; not everyone even had decent versions of Python 3 (to the extent that they even existed in the beginning) and there were all sorts of other roadblocks and considerations. But those days are long over. Python 3 is both more capable and more pervasive and most of all [[it's succeeded Python3HasSucceeded]], and at this point we're less than two years from the official end of life of Python 2. It's time to put Python 2 out to pasture and move onward, instead of making life hard on ourselves. ([[Sometimes you can make code trivially or even accidentally cross compatible Python3LearningQualms]] and if this happens, sure, keep things that way. What I'm talking about is going to extra effort and adding extra contortions to your code to accommodate both Python 2 and Python 3 people.) If you want to move a program to Python 3, the modern state of things is that pretty much anyone who wants to use it should be able to do so. If they can't do so because they're on a system that is so old it doesn't have a decent version of Python 3, they've got bigger problems than just your program; sooner or later they're going to have to get a capable Python 3, probably sooner. For packages, well, we're less than two years from Python 2 EOL so anyone who is stuck with Python 2 only packages has a problem that goes well beyond being unable to use your new Python 3 only version. (If they just haven't gotten around to moving their code to Python 3, perhaps your package will be just the push they need. But probably not; I suspect that a lot of people with Python 2 programs and systems have basically frozen them at this point.) If you have to run your code on a system or in an environment without a good Python 3, that's one thing. If you're being paid to make it work on both versions, for whatever reasons, well, you're being paid for it. But otherwise? If you're going to change code to run on Python 3, it's time to let Python 2 go, and I say that as someone who still is unhappy about how the whole Python 2/3 transition was done (or is still being done). PS: As far as Python 2 code goes, if you have existing code and you want or need to keep it running on Python 2, don't bother trying to make it also run on Python 3; wait until you can make a clean break with Python 2. In my view the same is true for new Python 2 code, but if you're writing new Python 2 code at this point you know your own situation best; it may be that your new code will have to live on past your transition from 2 to 3 and making it 3-compatible from the start will be better and less work than porting it at some point.