The argument is bad but the headline has a point: the value of a language is the quality of its libraries and the community that maintains it. Python 3 seems like a mistake; it fractured the community and sent people away. (to golang, to scala, probably even to ruby). If I were a library maintainer on py2 I would have felt betrayed by py3. Suddenly print is a function? 'yield from' won't be available on the py2 branc…
The Case Against Python 3
51–60 of 281 posts
Re: The Case Against Python 3
#52The argument is bad but the headline has a point: the value of a language is the quality of its libraries and the community that maintains it. Python 3 seems like a mistake; it fractured the community and sent people away. (to golang, to scala, probably even to ruby). If I were a library maintainer on py2 I would have felt betrayed by py3. Suddenly print is a function? 'yield from' won't be available on the py2 branc…
Re: The Case Against Python 3
#53Howdy Zed, there's a small typo in your printf statement. As written, x = 'Zed' print f"Howdy {x}" Should read, x = 'Zed' printf "Howdy {x}" I was under the suspicion that, "f" was some sort of operator or something, much like q is for Perl, print q{Howdy Zend};
Re: The Case Against Python 3
#54"It's sad to watch Python destroy itself because it's such a great language, but that seems to be where things are headed." The author has a point here. I've been programming Python for about 10 years now. Really concerned about the future of the language. Languages like Node and Go are progressing rapidly, but what's happening to Python? I used to complain about Node, but with the latest ES6/ES7 improvements it's ac…
I've done Python about as long as you but also like Golang for things Python is awful at.
Re: The Case Against Python 3
#55Regarding 2to3 not being flawless: agree, could be better.
Regarding core libraries: agree, but the same problem exists on Python 2 (different core libraries have different levels of compatibility for taking string or unicode as arguments), so I don't see how this can be a recommendation against 3 specifically.
Regarding new string types and handling, this has been discussed over and over again everywhere on the web, and boils down to people freaking out at unicode by default. This one does a good job explaining everything: http://www.diveintopython3.net/strings.html and this one does a good job at showing what you get w/ Py3 (not limited to new string types): https://speakerdeck.com/pyconslides/python-3-dot-3-trust-me-...
Regarding complaints about how many string interpolation methods there are: the `f` method relies on local scope (which is prone to introducing bugs), so it's actually pretty gimmicky compared to `.format` (which takes an explicit data structure as parameter). I would do the opposite and only teach `.format` to beginners since it leads to better code.
Regarding Turing completeness: fun.
Re: The Case Against Python 3
#56Re: The Case Against Python 3
#57On 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
#58The argument is bad but the headline has a point: the value of a language is the quality of its libraries and the community that maintains it. Python 3 seems like a mistake; it fractured the community and sent people away. (to golang, to scala, probably even to ruby). If I were a library maintainer on py2 I would have felt betrayed by py3. Suddenly print is a function? 'yield from' won't be available on the py2 branc…
Re: The Case Against Python 3
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure that if you understand both Turing completeness and the practice of actual programming, then you know that in most cases the one has virtually nothing to do with the other. (Which is not meant at all to imply that the author of linked article understands Turing completeness, just that even though he doesn't seem to he could still be excellent at teaching programming.)
Then the question becomes "why is he talking about turing completeness, something that is either irrelevant, or that he knows nothing about?"