[susan_hall]

I currently work for a client who has decided to shift away from PHP and towards Python. They had a monolithic PHP app with perhaps 250,000 lines of code. Now we are developing a series of Python apps in the microservices style. We've decided to develop everything as Python 2.7. We are not looking at Python 3.x. There are a few reasons. Some libraries that we want are in Python 2.7. And Amazon only supports 2.7. And we are not wild about Python 3.x's attempt to imitate a classical object oriented style.

We would look very closely at a Python 2.8, if it existed.

[vosper]

If I was your client I'd be pissed that you decided to rewrite my code into a legacy version of Python. Make no mistake: Python 3 is the future of Python. There will be no version 2.8 and there is no going back to 2.7.

Also, I don't know what you mean by "Amazon only supports 2.7" because boto (the main client for Python) has supported Python 3 for 2 years now. Perhaps you mean Lambda?

[hayd]

+1. Also it's easy to write code that supports both, so if you really need python 2 support right now (surely AWS Lambda python 3 is coming soon, you can already use it unofficially) that's a much better option than being entrenched in python 2 (mainly the string handling is the issue for buggy code that'll run in 2 but not 3).

[paulddraper]

He means Lambda.

[jayflux]

Could you tell us which libraries you want don't support 3.x?

Genuinely curious as i thought nearly all of the main ones were ported now

[drewrv]

At this point, if a library I wanted to use didn't support 3.X, I would take that as a giant red flag not to use said library.

[jimnotgym]

Breaking it down to microservices, could you not have some parts as 2.7, like any that need a specific library that does not have Python 3 support, and some in 3. Or for that matter GO, or RUST?

[antod]

> And we are not wild about Python 3.x's attempt to imitate a classical object oriented style.

Curious. What do you mean by that?