Says who?? Someone with delusions of grandeur, obviously. Because that's not up to anyone to say. Python 2 is obviously NOT going away any time soon. You can't just look at reality and claim the opposite just because it pleases you. Python 2 is here to stay and is in MUCH better shape than Python 3, in terms of actual production usage globally. Python 3 is a bad joke that someone wants to force down people's throats for NO good reason at all.
Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0
81–90 of 413 posts
Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly, I have the exact opposite view on Django. I hate their API and overall architecture, which I find to be the result of glueing features on top of features for many years. The internal code also is just like that: looks like every single method is riddled with out-of-band conditionals, which is the result of a community that prefers to hack things to work, instead of rethinking/refactoring.
Last time I looked a lot of the insides were terrible. A project I was really impressed with the internals of is Celery (was expecting the worst having seen Django).
Celery is an interesting one. The code looks well written, but I found contributing to be a real pain and documentation a mess, especially compared to Django's docs.
Also, up until recently it was a one man job by Ask Solem. He's done incredible work making this project live and I am grateful for that. However I fear others have found it hard to maintain as well, slowing down progress on a very popular backend python project.
Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or if they had called Python 3 a different name, and let both branches evolve freely and compete.
This sounds like a fork. Nothing need stop someone from forking and maintaining CPython 2.x. Open source is a do-ocracy. But I doubt it'd be worth it. Python 3 is getting great traction and is a fundamentally better language.
Python 3 is already a fork.
The problem is that Python 2 cannot evolve freely alongside Python 3, because even if someone wants to maintain it and keep releasing versions, the Python Software Foundation won't let them use the name Python (there was a post some weeks ago about someone who actually tried). So there is no free competition between 2 and 3. 2 has been basically killed by a decision from above.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no Python 3 hater. In fact, I have some projects in Python 3 and I would leave Python 2 if I could. But I, like many people, have to code stuff that has dependencies on Python 2, and the way they have handled the update bothers us for no good reason. In fact, the whole schism fiasco is making me use less Python and more Java, where my stone-age code still runs, lately.
Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure what it's like now, but the insides of the admin used to be fairly terrible (generating HTML with strings for instance). There was a patch to change this to use templates, but it was rejected at the time as it slowed things down too much. FormWizard (which I hear doesn't exist now), was a nightmare to use for any sort of complex form - I tried to do just this and had to call many private methods. I understan…
The core Django developers will (and have) freely admit that the admin interface implementation is a bit of a mess. There is an enormous amount of technical debt in it. It is however not a "core" part of Django and there are many alternatives. I think most people would agree that the correct long term solution to the admin interface is a complete rewrite, however the cost of doing so is too high. The html forms (used…
While the admin code is kinda messy it's still easy to extend and customize. I'd be somewhat surprised if you could make something that dynamic and not be at least a bit messy.
I myself and also other people I know have written quite some domain-specific applications almost entirely within the Django admin, which are as a result: secure, fast and easy to use, which in some cases are not just a bit better than the existing commercial tooling in these domains.
Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0
#85Good, it's about time this nonsense ends.
This is the beginning of the Python 3 nonsense, not the end yet. It will end when the Python 3 joke is scrapped and replaced with Python 4 as a SEAMLESS continuation of Python 2.
Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly, I have the exact opposite view on Django. I hate their API and overall architecture, which I find to be the result of glueing features on top of features for many years. The internal code also is just like that: looks like every single method is riddled with out-of-band conditionals, which is the result of a community that prefers to hack things to work, instead of rethinking/refactoring.
Could you give a description of some subsystem that has been architectured in this way, and then provide a concrete example of some methods that implement this pattern and why it is bad? We are users of Django, and it helps us to deliver projects, quickly. Interested to know how you think things could be improved.
I disagree with the parent post; Django's codebase is overall pretty high quality. It definitely used not to be that way, though.
But there are components that fit that. The entire form subsystem is awful to work with. Working with Javascript, webpack apps etc is a huge pain.
The template syntax is also a failed design experiment, based on the premise that backend coders and template authors are not the same people and should not have the same level of power -- some of this is based on a good idea at its core, but Django ended up backtracking on that half-way and we're now with a very inconsistent template system and having to implement kludgy template tags and filters or new object methods that do not take parameters whenever we want to do anything remotely complex.. At this point I wish it'd just move towards supporting Jinja syntax (that is, alongside the regular syntax, not as a separate engine like it's currently possible).
Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's going to be more and more of a burden for the developers to maintain compatibility with a 7-year old version of Python. I think this is smart and will help them focus on the road forward. Django 1.11 is an LTS release, so legacy stuff can stick with it and be just fine.
> It's going to be more and more of a burden for the developers to maintain compatibility with a 7-year old version of Python. That's the version of Python that most of their users actually use -- with no major plans of mass updating.
Yeah no.
I know that there are domains that are mostly on Python 2, and of course you'll always have legacy / unmaintained things lying around. But "zeee majoritie is Python 2.7!!1111" does not become true by some people chanting it over and over again. The simple fact that frameworks and libraries are moving away from Python 2 already proves that the majority does, in fact, not use Python 2. Otherwise maintainers would also be in an approximate majority to block/veto such changes.
Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's going to be more and more of a burden for the developers to maintain compatibility with a 7-year old version of Python. I think this is smart and will help them focus on the road forward. Django 1.11 is an LTS release, so legacy stuff can stick with it and be just fine.
> It's going to be more and more of a burden for the developers to maintain compatibility with a 7-year old version of Python. That's the version of Python that most of their users actually use -- with no major plans of mass updating.
We'll just have to see. That's the beauty of this. Don't want to upgrade? Stick with Django 1.11, since you don't want or need new things. It's LTS, so you won't miss out on critical fixes.
Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0
#89So, after a poor evolution strategy that lead the Python world to be split in two and forces maintainers to offer two versions for the same library, and upstream maintainers to offer support for two different python versions, the same is happening for Django! I speculate that the latest Django 1.x will remain used - and possibly the most used - for a lot, lot of time.
Please, don't tell me how "Python3 is good" - I know everything. I just still don't approve the way the transition was made - if we got to Python 3 through progressive deprecation and evolution via python 2.8 and 2.9, we wouldn't be where we are now.
If anything, the transition was too progressive.
The Python ecosystem would have been better served if they killed support for Python 2 much earlier, so that we can avoid wasting time on this tired debate, and more time writing useful code
Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> its healthy consideration for backwards compatibility Like screwing the huge majority of users with Python 2.x Django projects and having them update or be left behind?
Django and most libraries were already working seamlessly 2 years ago Python 2.7 will EOL in 2020. But I guess even then some luddites will complain how they will have been left hanging
When I started with Python - around 2011ish - Python 2.7 on Windows (with Qt 4) was a reasonable choice. Not much later almost everything I did was on Python 3. No regrets, no looking back, and no missed opportunities.