Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Case Against Python 3

learnpythonthehardway.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 281 posts

Re: The Case Against Python 3

#11

Post by unethical_ban »

kayman wrote: post #3

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.

As a writer of "quick n' dirty" webapps for internal use, I use python3 because philosophically, I want to help the world move forward, and the standard library has more stuff in it.

Re: The Case Against Python 3

#12

Post by ayrx »

dhatch387 wrote: post #6
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

And if he doesn't understand that concept should he _really_ be teaching anyone programming?

Re: The Case Against Python 3

#13

Post by joelg »

"Python 3 Is Not Turing Complete"

... Not only is this blatantly false, but the author acknowledges it as such and seems to think that it is still OK to write this sort of sentence. Backing a pure falsehood with anecdotal support from "actual Python project developers" does nothing to change its veracity. I can't respect anything else in this article after seeing this kind of sensationalism.

Perhaps the author doesn't understand Turing-completion (I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt), but even if so it's inexcusable to throw around this sort of technical language this casually.

Re: The Case Against Python 3

#14

Post by emodendroket »

dhatch387 wrote: post #6
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

I'm pretty sure this was a tongue-in-cheek way of stating the true criticism.

Re: The Case Against Python 3

#15

Post by brianwawok »

dhatch387 wrote: post #6
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

Ditto.

Then I read more for laughs.

I kind of feel like I could fix py2to3 if I have a sed and awk layer in there.. maybe a fun project.

Re: The Case Against Python 3

#16

Post by emodendroket »

mastazi wrote: post #5

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?

Well, it seems to me like that's the whole "may kill Python" thing he's talking about.

Re: The Case Against Python 3

#17

Post by revelation »

joelg wrote: post #13

"Python 3 Is Not Turing Complete" ... Not only is this blatantly false, but the author acknowledges it as such and seems to think that it is still OK to write this sort of sentence. Backing a pure falsehood with anecdotal support from "actual Python project developers" does nothing to change its veracity. I can't respect anything else in this article after seeing this kind of sensationalism. Perhaps the author doesn'…

Why the hell even bring that up. Not a very good tutorial in any way when the writer starts throwing around unrelated terms they don't grok.

Re: The Case Against Python 3

#18

Post by brianwawok »

unethical_ban wrote: post #11
kayman wrote: post #3

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.

As a writer of "quick n' dirty" webapps for internal use, I use python3 because philosophically, I want to help the world move forward, and the standard library has more stuff in it.

Ditto. I have submitted at least 10 PRs to fix Python3 bugs in OSS projects directly because of this. So perhaps I have made the world .000001% better.

Re: The Case Against Python 3

#19

Post by komaromy »

> The fact that you can't run Python 2 and Python 3 at the same time

I'm confused by this statement. I can start a python2 interpreter, background it, then start a python3 interpreter. Is there some other area that they inhibit each other in?

Post reply on HN