The Case Against Python 3

#1

Post by kot-behemoth » Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 3:50 AM UTC

The Case Against Python 3
learnpythonthehardway.org

Re: The Case Against Python 3

#2

Post by ayrx » Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 4:20 AM UTC

> Currently you cannot run Python 2 inside the Python 3 virtual machine. Since I cannot, that means Python 3 is not Turing Complete and should not be used by anyone.

I stopped there.

Re: The Case Against Python 3

#3

Post by kayman » Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 4:20 AM UTC

Python was one of the first languages I've tried I actually enjoyed programming in.

I hope to continue leveraging my investment in learning python by using it for a long time. So far I haven't been forced to use Python 3. I've tried a few times but always found it easier to just go back to python (2.7).

I figure eventually I have to use Python 3 but at this point, my life has been fine without upgrading to python3.

Re: The Case Against Python 3

#4

Post by rosstex » Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 4:20 AM UTC

ayrx wrote: post #2

> Currently you cannot run Python 2 inside the Python 3 virtual machine. Since I cannot, that means Python 3 is not Turing Complete and should not be used by anyone. I stopped there.

I came here to post this. What?

Re: The Case Against Python 3

#5

Post by mastazi » Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 4:22 AM UTC

On the other hand, I never suggest Learn Python The Hard Way or Codecademy to any new programmer, because I don't want them to ask me down the line "why you directed me to an obsolete Python course?". I think I'm not the only one. So I'm not sure what's the net result of those decisions made by the two sites, do they really help in keeping Python 2 alive?

Re: The Case Against Python 3

#6

Post by dhatch387 » Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 4:22 AM UTC

ayrx wrote: post #2

> Currently you cannot run Python 2 inside the Python 3 virtual machine. Since I cannot, that means Python 3 is not Turing Complete and should not be used by anyone. I stopped there.

A programming language "is said to be Turing complete or computationally universal if it can be used to simulate any single-taped Turing machine" [1]. This author doesn't seem to understand this concept properly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness

Re: The Case Against Python 3

#7

Post by JustSomeNobody » Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 4:23 AM UTC

ayrx wrote: post #2

> Currently you cannot run Python 2 inside the Python 3 virtual machine. Since I cannot, that means Python 3 is not Turing Complete and should not be used by anyone. I stopped there.

> THERE IS A HIGH PROBABILITY THAT PYTHON 3 IS SUCH A FAILURE IT WILL KILL PYTHON.

I stopped there.

Re: The Case Against Python 3

#8

Post by hayd » Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 4:23 AM UTC

and most importantly the book Learn Python the Hard Way only supports python 2.

Re: The Case Against Python 3

#9

Post by haikuginger » Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 4:24 AM UTC

ayrx wrote: post #2

> Currently you cannot run Python 2 inside the Python 3 virtual machine. Since I cannot, that means Python 3 is not Turing Complete and should not be used by anyone. I stopped there.

I also can't run Python 2 by passing it into a C compiler. Man, I should publish a paper on this- they thought C was Turing-complete, but I proved them wrong!

Re: The Case Against Python 3

#10

Post by Tomte » Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 4:24 AM UTC

ayrx wrote: post #2

> Currently you cannot run Python 2 inside the Python 3 virtual machine. Since I cannot, that means Python 3 is not Turing Complete and should not be used by anyone. I stopped there.

Yes, the author doesn't know what he's talking about.

But people talking about Turing completeness in a real programming language (usually in the form of "x is Turing complete, therefore you couldn't ask for more") almost always haven't got a clue.