[deleted]
The Case Against Python 3
141–150 of 281 posts
Re: The Case Against Python 3
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Let's hope python can be saved. Can you explain why Python would need to be saved? I mean every week on r/MachineLearning there is at least one new Python deep learning framework being launched[1], I wonder if you can mention any other language which is that healthy. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/search?sort=new&res...
All stable versions of the big ML frameworks are still 2.7.
Are there many ML frameworks that only work in 2.7? Scipy and numpy work in both 2.7 and 3.x, so I'd imagine (without being heavy in the field) that any new development using these scientific computing packages could be Python version agnostic as well. Is this generally not the case?
Re: The Case Against Python 3
#143Anyone here remember "Rails is a Ghetto"? http://web.archive.org/web/20080103072111/http://www.zedshaw...
Zed's Rails article did lead to some improvements in the Ruby community (eg: The 'pickaxe' had meta-programming added to the next version). Zed likes to stir things up, but rather than dismiss him completely over some nit picky issues, eat the meat and spit out the bones.
To the "I stopped there" folks in this thread: why do you think Python 3 is still seeing such poor adoption?
Re: The Case Against Python 3
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience a lot of the problems with automatically converting existing Python 2 code to Python 3 code is that the Python 2 code usually makes fundamentally broken assumptions when it comes to unicode and bytes.
This is what the author doesn't get- the fact that Python 2 makes no distinction between bytes-like objects and string-like objects is a bug , not a feature . He finds his code so awful to migrate because he has built it on a contrary assumption.
I was working on a side project and ended up upgrading because I could figure out how Python was encoding my data. I got so frustrated with the semantics I found it easier to jusy upgrade.
Re: The Case Against Python 3
#145This has to be the ne plus ultra of Python scaremongering. It describes some sort of bizzaro world of a doomed language which it populates with Machiavellian Python maintainers, brainwashed developers, and a small group of heroic holdouts who see resisting Python 3 as a moral imperative. Apparently having too many string formatting options is a moral issue (three, to be specific). As someone who writes a _lot_ of Pyt…
I feel like I'm the only one who learned Python from the official site's tutorial page:
https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/index.html
I found it really helpful.
Re: The Case Against Python 3
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Naw, `zip` is a builtin in py2. You might be thinking of `itertools.izip`? https://repl.it/E5v6/2
zip in py2 returns a tuple type (i.e tries to consumes the iterator through a StopIteration) in py3 it returns a iterator (consumes it on demand). Try this in py2: https://repl.it/E5vd/0
[deleted]
Re: The Case Against Python 3
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Node is an interpreter for the v8 JavaScript engine and it uses a language named JavaScript. There isn't a language named node :) I've done Python about as long as you but also like Golang for things Python is awful at.
Javascript is a colloquial name for what is formally known as ECMAScript. There isn't a language named JavaScript :)
Nice try! ECMAScript is a standardized child of JavaScript, one with less warts and more awesome after lessons learned in javascript hell. ES6 will be nice.
Re: The Case Against Python 3
#148and most importantly the book Learn Python the Hard Way only supports python 2.
A lot of the basics work in both, or with some minor tweaks.
Re: The Case Against Python 3
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
> THERE IS A HIGH PROBABILITY THAT PYTHON 3 IS SUCH A FAILURE IT WILL KILL PYTHON. I stopped there.
Isn't this what killed perl?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of perl6 was announced in 2000, and perl6 was finally published in 2015. So there was a 15 year gap when perl5 was perceived on its way to become obsolete, but perl6 was not available.
I am unsure when the idea of python3 (first as python 3000) came to general knowledge, but it must have been some time between 2000 and 2004. Then python3 was published in 2008.
So the time between obsoleting the old version, before the new version was available, was notably shorter with python.
Re: The Case Against Python 3
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
A language must change, or it will be left behind, and become an esoteric toy. Even C has to deal with this. The only reason C is still popular is because of it's grandfathered status in so much of our infrastructure, and in many of the popular OS choices. A language that changes will alienate people, and lose people. Perl saw this. Python is seeing this. The way to guard against this is to keep backwards compatibili…
>I doubt the Scala community worries about exactly the same things. Why do you single out Scala as being particularly different to Python and Perl?
Because Scala isn't nearly as popular as Perl was or Python is. I imagine losing some perceived status is less important to them than just doing the best they can to provide a good product and address people's needs.