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

Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 413 posts

Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0

#111

Post by scrollaway »

jdimov11 wrote: post #109
scrollaway wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claiming people have been brainwashed because you happen to have a different use case than them is not appropriate for HN, nor anywhere. And speaking to your earlier point as somebody using Python 3 in production, says me . Nobody in here cares whether you in particular gets to see the advantages of the new version; but you don't get to say "nobody is using it in production", you don't get to say it's "forced down pe…

Oh, it's not appropriate? Should I go sit in the corner now? Who the FUCK do you think you are??

I'm somebody you previously paid a lot of money to write Django code for you, Jordan.

Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0

#112

Post by mrweasel »

coldtea wrote: post #50
mrweasel wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, unicode alone was worth the switch. I will go to great length to avoid the hell that is unicode in Python 2. Besides speed, I never seen any good argument that would make me start a new project on 2.7, rather than the latest v3 release. I get that there was a series of data science libraries that wasn't supported initially, but seems to have been solved at this point. So I really do see why people continue to…

> Besides speed, I never seen any good argument that would make me start a new project on 2.7, rather than the latest v3 release. That's because you start "new projects". Some of us have 10+ years of codebases to maintain, and we don't care for Python 3 features...

If you don't care about the Python 3 features, then don't migrate. I suspect that the issue is that you want at least some of the features, but the cost of moving 10+ years of Python 2 to Python 3 just aren't worth the benefits of those new features.

While I do believe that your point is still valid, one also have to accept that Python 2 will be a legacy platform at some point. In the long run I don't view that as much different than people complaining about Visual Basic 6 being deprecated.

Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0

#113

Post by ageofwant »

alanfranzoni wrote: post #3

So, 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.

No core Python dev will support Python 2 after EOL. Some corps may continue to do so sure, just like there are Java 1.4 codebases still in production. I will work on a Java 1.4 codebase if you are prepared to pay for my accrued personal obsolesce as well. If your Java 1.4 job is the last job I'll do it has to pay for the next 15 years lost income as well. The same will go for Python 2.

Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0

#114

Post by jdimov11 »

scrollaway wrote: post #111
jdimov11 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, it's not appropriate? Should I go sit in the corner now? Who the FUCK do you think you are??

I'm somebody you previously paid a lot of money to write Django code for you, Jordan.

Right. Using Python 2. Don't go to the dark side. :)

Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0

#115

Post by nodamage »

Acalyptol wrote: post #80
nodamage wrote: post #75

I have a Python 2.7 project that has been running smoothly for many years now and I'm having trouble finding a reason to upgrade to Python 3. The project uses the unicode type to represent all strings, and encodes/decodes as necessary (usually to UTF-8) when doing I/O. I haven't really had any of the Unicode handling problems that people seem to complain about in Python 2. Can someone explain what benefit I would act…

It has always seemed to me that Python 3 was mainly a fix on the philosophy of handling strings, but that it didn't offered a clear practical advantage for programmers already handling strings with care. I don't think there is a practical reason to upgrade to Python 3 in terms of language design. The reason will be in term of survival as the community seems to be willing to follow the Python 3 movement and official s…

Yes, that is my impression as well. In hindsight, it is unfortunate how much it ended up fracturing the Python ecosystem.

Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0

#116

Post by viraptor »

throwawayish wrote: post #97
viraptor wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that you're looking for those improvements in CPython. From your list (IMO): speed and multicore are going to stay where they are in CPython - GIL is unlikely to be removed, because it's basically part of the behaviour right now. There were a few attempts, but it seems nobody even tries anymore. (and I'm fine with that) Maybe pypy, grumpy, or others will do this instead. I'm not sure why you expect GPU fr…

The GIL is encoded into practically every C API of the interpreter. It's not going away in CPython, and at the very least any Python implementation supporting CPython extensions will have a global lock for calls into extensions. And even if (there were patches for removing the GIL already around in the 90s): All of the approaches and patches shown so far significantly degraded single-threaded performance, which matte…

Yeah, you are a bit condescending here. Part of the topic was multicore. If you're interested in actually cutting down the data transfers without resorting to explicit shared memory, GIL and threads are very much on topic. Whether it's an overblown issue depends specifically on your workload and reasons why you're still using python if you care about multicore.

Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0

#117

Post by slig »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #83
gtaylor wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

> the Python Software Foundation won't let them use the name Python

That's how trademarks are supposed to work; they must go after anyone using without permission or they lose it.

Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0

#118

Post by alasdairnicol »

BozeWolf wrote: post #104
surouaue wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "Django is not RoR", are you saying Django doesn't break backwards compatibility but Ruby on Rails does? If so, I have to very strongly disagree. It's almost mind boggling to me how much they break backwards compatibility as a framework. They usually warn users with a deprecation warning in one version and then they make the backwards incompatible change in the next version, but the sheer amount of these…

If you keep up with releases it usually is quite alright. Switching LTS versions causes a lot of drama indeed. But that is to be expected.

Agreed 1.4 LTS to 1.8 LTS was tricky, but future LTS to LTS upgrades like 1.8 to 1.11 should be easier. From 1.8 onwards, if your code runs without depreciation warnings in one LTS, then it should work on the next.

Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0

#119

Post by joeyspn »

stevehiehn wrote: post #10

Good. I've been getting into python a bit because i have an interest in datascience. I'm mostly a Java dev. I have to say the python2/3 divide is a real turn off. Many of the science libs want to use seem to be in 2.7 with no signs of moving.

> Many of the science libs want to use seem to be in 2.7 with no signs of moving

The most important scientific libraries have pledged to drop support before 2020, and are all python3-ready

http://www.python3statement.org/

Re: Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0

#120

Post by coldtea »

scrollaway wrote: post #99

Oh my god stop. You're all over this thread. What bit you ? This is the price you pay for staying on an old version . You do not get to stick to an old version AND demand that others do too. You CAN stay on Python 2. You CAN stay on Django 1.11. It's LTS. So is Python 2.7. You get to use both until 2020 with no issues. After that, not upgrading is a technical debt that will start to accrue, faster and faster as you c…

>Oh my god stop. You're all over this thread. What bit you?

As someone who has 6 comments in this thread yourself, I don't think you are in position to complaint.

I also find "what bit you" and "please stop" rude. You don't get to dictate what others opinion should be.

>This is the price you pay for staying on an old version. You do not get to stick to an old version AND demand that others do too.

7+ years on and the "old" version has more users than the new one. That's a fact supported by numbers. So maybe you want to recheck with reality whether the transition was a success instead of arguing with me?

Not all transitions go well, the Perl 6 transition killed Perl, the PHP 4 to 5 transition (another major one) went quite smoothly.

Post reply on HN