Hope you don t succeed
Why I'm Making Python 2.8
41–50 of 392 posts
Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes something obsolete in your eyes then? Just because some people want A to replace B, that makes B obsolete? For reference, Oxford dictionaries define (..."define"? are multiple dictionaries involved here?) "obsolete" as: 1. no longer produced or used; out of date. Clearly Python 2.7 is in widespread use, and version 2.7.12 came out just a few months ago, so it's neither "no longer produced" nor "no longer u…
Python 2.7 is outdated by Python 3.5. The fact that there is a bugfix release doesn't change that. I mean look at other things. You can still program in C 89 or FORTRAN 77 or COBOL 74 (and no doubt there is somebody still supporting compilers and runtimes for those), but they are all obsolete standards. Addendum: I think for standards like programming language semantics (which in case of Python is directly embodied i…
[deleted]
Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8
#43I make software that people can write plugins for in Python. After months, years of struggle we finally dropped support for Python 2 because our small team could not bear the overhead of maintaining two bindings. We work a lot with researchers in signal processing domain and we have hard time as it is to get people to use Python 3. Please, do not put obsolete software on life support.
> Please, do not put obsolete software on life support. Downvoting because Python 2 is anything but obsolete. People still love using it.
People in China were, until just a few years ago, still using Windows XP, too, though.
Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8
#44I can't fault a single thing in his justification. This should have been the approach to modernising python all along.
> This should have been the approach to modernising python all along. The core driver for the Python 3 break was the fix in text model, this is what allowed literally everything else as it completely broke existing code. And I, for one, think it's one of the most important improvements of Python 3, the text model of Python 2 is a giant mess and makes it very hard to correctly deal with non-ascii text for any non-triv…
> the text model of Python 2 is a giant mess and makes it very hard to correctly deal with non-ascii text for any non-trivial software
There are counter-arguments to this. Armin Ronacher, author of (among other software) the excellent Flask web framework, thinks that Python 2's system of codecs and byte streams is better in practice [1][2]. Reasons include: You can do byte -> byte conversions with codecs that are no longer possible. You can better handle text encodings besides UTF-8 (and here he describes several embarassing failures of Python 3 to handle OS paths correctly). You can write single APIs that handle byte streams like gzip and text encodings like UTF-8.
[1]: http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2011/12/7/thoughts-on-python3/ [2]: http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2014/5/12/everything-about-unicode/
Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8
#45> I've been working on Python 2.8 (not an official Python release)
It is very dishonest to call it Python 2.8 then.
Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes something obsolete in your eyes then? Just because some people want A to replace B, that makes B obsolete? For reference, Oxford dictionaries define (..."define"? are multiple dictionaries involved here?) "obsolete" as: 1. no longer produced or used; out of date. Clearly Python 2.7 is in widespread use, and version 2.7.12 came out just a few months ago, so it's neither "no longer produced" nor "no longer u…
I'd argue Python 2.7 counts as no longer produced. The 2.7.x releases with their bugfixes are akin to an electronics company still honoring the warranty of tape recorders and still repairing them. That doesn't mean tape recorders are not obsolete, especially since the company is not making them anymore. I consider the parallel 'making software' to be the process of feature proposal -> patch -> review -> merge
In your eyes is anything that isn't getting more and more features added every few months necessarily obsolete? Can't something just become mature and fulfill its goals at some point? Do you consider T-shirts to be obsolete too? If they kept adding more and more attachments ("features") to your clothes every few months to prevent them from becoming "obsolete" you'd be walking around in really heavy clothing...
Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8
#47The worst thing about open source is that people can do stupid stuff with your software. If you're going to create this abomination, at least do us all a favour and DON'T call it Python. Call it Retardython or something. I don't want to imagine people coming into the official support channels and claiming they are using "Python 2.8", then other people lecturing them about what that software really is, etc. Sounds lik…
"DON'T call it Python"
They shouldn't have called it 'Python' 3 in the first place when it's practically backwards incompatible
Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8
#48Python programmers and companies with python code should spend the time and effort to move to python 3 instead of spending that time and effort to backport stuff to python 2 because python 2 is deprecated and the future is python 3. Python 3 I think people and businesses with python 2 code would be better off moving their code bases to python 3 instead of doing things like this.
Companies with Python code are probably better off keeping their working, tested code than switching to an incompatible interpreter and set of libraries which among other things will print "b'Hello',b'World'" into their mission critical CSV files. Yes, the built in csv module really does that in Python 3.
Companies using the built in csv module would be better off moving to something like csvparser.
Python's a superlative language but it has a pretty terrible set of included libraries. urllib2 isn't the only library with a superior alternative on pypi. Pretty much all of them do.
Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8
#49This isn't bound to confuse anyone.
This comment wasn't ironic
Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This should have been the approach to modernising python all along. The core driver for the Python 3 break was the fix in text model, this is what allowed literally everything else as it completely broke existing code. And I, for one, think it's one of the most important improvements of Python 3, the text model of Python 2 is a giant mess and makes it very hard to correctly deal with non-ascii text for any non-triv…
> the text model of Python 2 is a giant mess and makes it very hard to correctly deal with non-ascii text for any non-trivial software There are counter-arguments to this. Armin Ronacher, author of (among other software) the excellent Flask web framework, thinks that Python 2's system of codecs and byte streams is better in practice [1][2]. Reasons include: You can do byte -> byte conversions with codecs that are no…
I don't think it's honest to post this without context, and without mentioning that in the five years that passed most of these things were remedied, and indeed, some things were already remedied at the time of his writing.
Some points Armin makes are valid and remain valid for Linux-ish systems, but have been shown and refuted countless times for other operating systems; Python is not a Linux-only show. I won't re-iterate all that here.