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

Why I'm Making Python 2.8

naftaliharris.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 392 posts

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#91

Post by sandGorgon »

masklinn wrote: post #25
sandGorgon wrote: post #5

this is incredible - give me unicode support in python 2. asyncio ? probably .. i'll still be happy with gevent. This is a clear path for a python upgrade.

> give me unicode support in python 2 Nope. Can't be done without getting Python 3 either way, because Python 3's text model is not compatible with Python 2's . That is why the core team allowed the other breaking changes, because software was going to be broken in the first place.

not entirely true - http://python-future.org/unicode_literals.html

it's not 100% seamless, but its almost there.

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#92

Post by orf »

sandGorgon wrote: post #16
orf wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Python 2 supports unicode and asyncio.

i know it does - but it would be nice to have the everything-is-unicode mechanism of python 3. Asian developers hit unicode problems before US based developers because of the natural differences in underlying OS language.

... You can't have your cake and eat it. If you want Unicode everywhere then you use Python 3, because it's a breaking change. Saying you'd want it in Python 2 is a confused way of saying "I need to use Python 3".

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#93

Post by wfunction »

js8 wrote: post #74
wfunction wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Addendum: I think for standards like programming language semantics (which in case of Python is directly embodied in the C implementation), "obsolete" means there is a new standard by some official body (say, the developer of the old standard) that addresses shortcomings of the old standard. Really? So even if no one ever uses it, it still renders the old one obsolete?!

> So even if no one ever uses it, it still renders the old one obsolete?! This is a strawman, because I don't think this ever happens (feel free to give an example). There will always be people who try to use new standard; they may abandon it later, but they will at least try to use it. In any case, this is not really relevant to Python 3, which is used plenty and more and more every day. And your insistence that Pyt…

>> So even if no one ever uses it, it still renders the old one obsolete?!

> This is a strawman, because I don't think this ever happens (feel free to give an example). There will always be people who try to use new standard; they may abandon it later, but they will at least try to use it.

...I thought it was obvious I didn't mean the case where literally NO ONE was using it, but apparently it wasn't. Sorry. My point was, if it doesn't catch on, then does it still render what came before it obsolete? Is it only about time and whether it fixes some things from before? Not about whether it's actually used, or whether it introduces other problems, or whether the previous technology is still in widespread use, or a million other factors? Really?

As for Python 3 being used and more every day, yes, I never claimed it was obsolete or dead or anything else. I'm just saying Python 2.7 is being used too, and hence it's not obsolete either as you seem to think. You claimed it was, so I asked for your definition of the term. You're rejecting the standard one and you still haven't given me one that you're willing to apply to things other than Python. Not to mention I don't see why software deserves special treatment for the word's definition here.

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#94

Post by sandGorgon »

lloeki wrote: post #22
sandGorgon wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i know it does - but it would be nice to have the everything-is-unicode mechanism of python 3. Asian developers hit unicode problems before US based developers because of the natural differences in underlying OS language.

But then it wouldn't be compatible with Python 2 code, so you might as well use Python 3

http://python-future.org/unicode_literals.html

nope - you can mix them in python 2 code. The way it should have been done in the first place.

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#96

Post by wfunction »

ubernostrum wrote: post #83
wfunction wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Addendum: I think for standards like programming language semantics (which in case of Python is directly embodied in the C implementation), "obsolete" means there is a new standard by some official body (say, the developer of the old standard) that addresses shortcomings of the old standard. Really? So even if no one ever uses it, it still renders the old one obsolete?!

You should be aware that trying to badger people with strict adherence to an arbitrarily-chosen definition of a term as a way to avoid countering their arguments does not make you look intelligent, does not make you look well-qualified to argue the topic, and does not make you look like you're winning the argument. Resorting to technical haranguing about the definition of a term typically, in fact, gives the appearan…

I'm not trying to make anything or anyone "look" any particular way. I'm trying to present an argument against the undeserved misuse of a label that carries a negative connotation and that is carelessly thrown around in this industry far too much in order to dismiss technologies people don't consider smoking hot enough for their tastes.

How in the world was my definition "arbitrarily-chosen"? I literally chose definition #1 on Oxford English dictionaries. That's arbitrary?!

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#100

Post by js8 »

wfunction wrote: post #93
js8 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So even if no one ever uses it, it still renders the old one obsolete?! This is a strawman, because I don't think this ever happens (feel free to give an example). There will always be people who try to use new standard; they may abandon it later, but they will at least try to use it. In any case, this is not really relevant to Python 3, which is used plenty and more and more every day. And your insistence that Pyt…

>> So even if no one ever uses it, it still renders the old one obsolete?! > This is a strawman, because I don't think this ever happens (feel free to give an example). There will always be people who try to use new standard; they may abandon it later, but they will at least try to use it. ...I thought it was obvious I didn't mean the case where literally NO ONE was using it, but apparently it wasn't. Sorry. My point…

I don't think this is going to be a productive discussion, so this is my last comment on the matter.

I already gave you a definition of what it means to be obsolete for standards (such as specifications of programming languages).

In general, an old standard will become obsolete once the new standard (that is supposed to replace it) is finalized (for example, in RFCs, they explicitly say that). At that point, there are probably no serious users of the new standard yet, so the actual usage doesn't matter.

Of course a standard can be de facto rejected by people abandoning it instead of accepting it. Then usually there will either be another standard that obsoletes the old one again (as was a case with XHTML and HTML 5), or people will move on entirely to something else; in either case, the old standard will remain obsolete.

Post reply on HN