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

351–360 of 392 posts

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#351

Post by statsmatscats »

js8 wrote: post #304
armitron wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go and Julia are already reaping the benefits. I see no future for Python be that 2 or 3. It's not great at anything, but projects a veneer of friendliness (that one should quickly outgrow) on top of a pile of bad implementation decisions and terrible design. Its popularity is based on superficial attributes rather than solid foundations. Eventually, the entire ecosystem will collapse and the masses will flood to the…

Julia can be a good competitor to Python, but far in the future. Now it's just not there yet. Go is interesting, but really a different (and perhaps smaller) use case. What, for instance, I do in Python? That little one-off script that converts one thing to another or calculates something - I am not sure why I would even bother thinking about Go. I have no doubt that at some point, Python will be replaced by somethin…

What's wrong with Julia? 1.0 should be coming out in a bit less than a year.

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#352

Post by int_19h »

ubernostrum wrote: post #347
int_19h wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fixing the string mess in Py2 was a good thing. But the fact that the same code now silently does the always wrong thing in Py3 wrt CSV is clearly a bug. Actually, the design defect here is calling str() on everything, and assuming that the output is sensible for CSV. It may be a decent rule of thumb, but it clearly does not apply to bytes. Given the likelihood that someone might mistakenly use bytes as a string (for…

Except if you make an exception for bytes, what about other types that might get passed into a CSV writer, whose __str__ is something "wrong" for CSV purposes? Do they also get auto-detected? Do we add a new __csv__() method just for when outputting to CSV (since it might not be "wrong" for other output formats)? Or do we ditch str()-ifying altogether, but then add back in a bunch of special cases for numeric types a…

`bytes` is plainly special case for historical reasons here - it's something that is not a string, but that so many people assume to be a string.

So yeah, I would be fine with making an exception for it (and providing some kind of option to disable that exception, for that incredibly rare case where someone really does need b"foo" in their CSV output).

And then in 5 years, flip the default of that switch, and deprecate it. In another 5, remove it entirely.

Also, note that raising an error in this case is not placating the people who insist on using bytes as strings. Quite the opposite - it very loudly and unambiguously tells them that they're wrong, and how exactly they're wrong.

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#353

Post by jbmorgado »

dagss wrote: post #268

I see many people vigorously defending Py3 but I wonder how many of these have a paying-the-bills kind of job. Where you would look at the cost of porting a large project to Py3 and get an answer like half a million USD (easily). Do you go "of course we do that, that money is easily recouped with the added programmer productivity of Py3"? No chance. So the question is do you want to basically light that money on fire…

If the code is "perfectly running" on python 2.7, then why do you need python 2.8?

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#354

Post by bb611 »

int_19h wrote: post #295
bb611 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unreasonable to say "merrily did something different, without telling anyone" when fixing the string implementation was a significant reason for creating backwards-incompatible Python3 in the first place. It's not a bug, it's a fix for an architectural error in Python 2, and it was quite well announced at the time: https://docs.python.org/3.0/whatsnew/3.0.html

Fixing the string mess in Py2 was a good thing. But the fact that the same code now silently does the always wrong thing in Py3 wrt CSV is clearly a bug. Actually, the design defect here is calling str() on everything, and assuming that the output is sensible for CSV. It may be a decent rule of thumb, but it clearly does not apply to bytes. Given the likelihood that someone might mistakenly use bytes as a string (for…

If it's a bug, why not submit a fix?

I think the Python maintainers fundamentally disagree with you on that point, but a fix submission would settle it unambiguously.

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#355

Post by fatbird »

eej71 wrote: post #151

It's too bad the python 3.x fans can't see this as feedback about how difficult it for users of 2.x to upgrade to the latest and greatest. Many 2.x folks have sprawling code bases and complex operational needs. The 3.x advocates seems to consistently ignore that. Shoot the 2.8 messenger all you want for choosing to call it Python 2.8, but don't dismiss the issue that drives thoughtful people to get value out of this…

The python maintainers and the 3.x fans do see this, and know this, and decided to do it. They knew there would be a cost in community, and decided it was worth it. They haven't been oblivious, and they've made several large concessions in 3.4 and 3.5 to increase the ease of migrating. Stop denigrating them.

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#356

Post by BuckRogers »

So it begins.

The arrogance and stubbornness of the CPython dev team is starting to face the consequences we all knew were coming. If only they'd at least done unicode right. Gone with assume UTF-8 and kept the indistinction between bytes and unicode, more of us would be onboard.

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#357

Post by BuckRogers »

naftaliharris wrote: post #342
lloeki wrote: post #33

> And the majority of Python code written does not run under any of the 3.x interpreters. This makes it harder for its users to be productive. What a load of bollocks. For new projects this only matters if libraries aren't ported, which they are for the most part. For old projects, either you're in a situation where you can spend time porting your code to Python 3, or you don't; but as TFA mentioned pep-404, the writ…

> the writing has been officially on the wall ever since 2011 so at that point you have to admit you did choose to incur tech debt and do nothing about it, so the claimed loss of productivity is on you. When Python 3 was released, it offered Python users a trade: In exchange for a productivity loss (porting your Python 2 code), you'd get a productivity gain (new features in Python 3 and removed cruft). Some projects…

There's a lot of good names based on Monty Python properties, but I like "Cobra", starting at version 2.8. Ignoring the MP stuff and going for something on the snake theme.

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#358

Post by BuckRogers »

jimnotgym wrote: post #213
hartator wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think after 5 years we should came to the realization that Python 3.x is not the future of Python. You can't blame people to try to find solution.

Except it kinda is the current version to lots of us. I moved to Python as a hobbyist from .net languages and loved the freedom of not having an IDE and working with Linux. The first decent book I read was on Python 3 so I learned Python 3. Lots of us 'newcomers' (not so new in my case) learnt on Python 3, find perfectly good library support in Python 3. In fact the 'old guard', sound a bit like my Dad talking about…

That's the gamble you took when you chose to go all in on Python3. I personally didn't buy the arguments made and chose to stick with Python2. If I migrate anywhere, it would be to a Python2 compatible fork or something like Go.

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#359

Post by BuckRogers »

underyx wrote: post #54
wfunction wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Tape recorders are not still being made; verdict: obsolete T-shirts are still being made; verdict: not obsolete Python 2 is not still being made; verdict: obsolete

That's wrong. It's not if something is being made, it's if something is being used. Nothing is obsolete that's still doing a job.

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#360

Post by ubernostrum »

coldtea wrote: post #140
lloeki wrote: post #33

> And the majority of Python code written does not run under any of the 3.x interpreters. This makes it harder for its users to be productive. What a load of bollocks. For new projects this only matters if libraries aren't ported, which they are for the most part. For old projects, either you're in a situation where you can spend time porting your code to Python 3, or you don't; but as TFA mentioned pep-404, the writ…

> What a load of bollocks. For new projects this only matters if libraries aren't ported, which they are for the most part. For old projects, either you're in a situation where you can spend time porting your code to Python 3, or you don't; but as TFA mentioned pep-404, the writing has been officially on the wall ever since 2011 so at that point you have to admit you did choose to incur tech debt and do nothing about…

The "writing has been on the wall" is not an excuse, it's mostly blackmail ("port or else you wont run on 3, and we'll stop the 2.x line"). And most people didn't (and shouldn't) fall for that.

So let me get this straight.

1. A bunch of people you've never met and probably have never paid or financially supported,

2. Gave you a high-quality programming language, for free, to use for any purpose you liked,

3. And then when you and they disagreed about the best way forward in a new version, you claimed their refusal to continue supporting and adding new features to the old version for you, for free, essentially forever, constitutes "blackmail" on their part.

Do I have that right?

Post reply on HN