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

311–320 of 413 posts

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

#311

Post by compuguy »

throwawayish wrote: post #87
coldtea wrote: post #62

Earlier 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. 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 wo…

There are some major products like Ansible, that are still only compatible with Python 2.7.

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

#312

Post by misterhtmlcss »

linsomniac wrote: post #302
mmerickel wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the developers seem to think this is totally ok. To be clear the core maintainer-ship of pyramid is about 2-3 people. We would love more contributors to the core codebase, but with that level of commitment we're obviously not able to provide a comparable level of support to a project with more contributors. This is the nature of open source and it is the rare exception to the rule to find packages / projects th…

Sure, but this is in a thread that starts with "Django has a new release", so I do think it is relevant considering that Django DOES have LTS releases. (Aside: mmerickel is the developer I was talking to in Freenode) Honestly, I didn't know that Pyramid had such a small amount of manpower behind it. It presents itself and has a reputation in the Python community, at least in my experience, of a bigger project. But, a…

While I'd say that's true as a general rule, an aging system requires a disproportionate amount of time as it ages and the diversity of the platforms underlying stack changes and evolves. This is an issue that would grow exponentially worse over time and being as their team is that small they need to consider risk to their user base when choosing the longevity of their product support. It's quite possible they could support normal issues up to 5 years, but what about the '20 year flood scenario' or 'once in a lifetime flood' if you prefer? What if something that level of bad hits near the 5 year mark and the platform diversity is nearing its maximum diversity?

I believe it's better for them to focus on what they know they can do day in and day out regardless of the circumstances and let companies make the decisions that make sense to them.

In a world where the hardware is written off by the business in 3 years though and websites age out at 3 years and car manufacturers are increasingly trying to hit a 3 year model revision mark it seems to me it's not too much to ask that companies investing hundreds of thousands in an application using Django or Pyramid also invest in maintaining it and keeping it modern or perhaps their existing business model needs additional revision too.

Just a thought as the least informed member of HN.

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

#313

Post by wolf550e »

bmh100 wrote: post #307
Buttons840 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dictionaries with guaranteed ordering. I don't think you're suppose to depend on the ordering of dictionaries. It's an implementation detail which might get changed, although it wont actually ever be changed because people will come to depend on it.

I'm specifically referring to OrderedDict in this case, which does have guaranteed, insertion-based ordering. It was introduced in 3.1, circa 2009, via PEP 372.

https://docs.python.org/2/library/collections.html#ordereddi...

> New in version 2.7.

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

#315

Post by bmh100 »

wolf550e wrote: post #313
bmh100 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm specifically referring to OrderedDict in this case, which does have guaranteed, insertion-based ordering. It was introduced in 3.1, circa 2009, via PEP 372.

https://docs.python.org/2/library/collections.html#ordereddi... > New in version 2.7.

That's a good point. I didn't realize that it was also introduced into 2.7 at the same time.

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

#316

Post by misterhtmlcss »

Is anyone going to talk about what this means for Python and Django? I read the first 30-40 comments and they are all about off topic stuff related to Django, but still the core premise is the committed move to Python 3.x going forward.

What do people think of that?! I'm a newer dev and I'd really really love to hear what people think of that and what it means for the future rather than side conversations about how bad their API is, how good it is, how good their Docs are and how bad they are.... Blah blah.

Please!! This community is filled with some of the most brilliant minds and I for one don't want to miss out on this chance to hear what people think of this change.

Please please don't reply that you disagree with my POV. That's irrelevant, but please do if you are interested in the initial topic. I'd be be very excited to hear your thoughts.

So Django moving to Python 3.X Go :)

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

#317

Post by [deleted] »

bmh100 wrote: post #307
Buttons840 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dictionaries with guaranteed ordering. I don't think you're suppose to depend on the ordering of dictionaries. It's an implementation detail which might get changed, although it wont actually ever be changed because people will come to depend on it.

I'm specifically referring to OrderedDict in this case, which does have guaranteed, insertion-based ordering. It was introduced in 3.1, circa 2009, via PEP 372.

[deleted]

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

#318

Post by ezarowny »

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…

> Dictionary-based logging configuration

I believe this already exists: https://docs.python.org/2.7/library/logging.config.html#logg...

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

#319

Post by anentropic »

myf01d wrote: post #222

I hope they just find a way to support SQLAlchemy natively like they did with Jinja2 because Django ORM is really very restrictive and has numerous serious annoying bugs that have been open since I was in high school.

> Django ORM ... has numerous serious annoying bugs

Such as?

I've worked primarily with Django for years and I think if the ORM really had "numerous serious annoying bugs" I'd have a mental library of these things to watch out for. But I can't think of any ORM bugs off the top of my head, I don't really remember encountering any.

We all know SQL Alchemy is 'better' and there are things Django ORM can't do, but 99% of the time it's adequate.

Are you sure you didn't mean "features I wish it had"...?

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

#320

Post by spiffyman »

misterhtmlcss wrote: post #316

Is anyone going to talk about what this means for Python and Django? I read the first 30-40 comments and they are all about off topic stuff related to Django, but still the core premise is the committed move to Python 3.x going forward. What do people think of that?! I'm a newer dev and I'd really really love to hear what people think of that and what it means for the future rather than side conversations about how b…

First, this is a good thing for the community. The ecosystem has been pretty well prepared for 3.x adoption for a while, but we just haven't done it. Still, when Django switched its default docs to use 3.x instead of 2.x, it noticeably increased adoption of 3.x. (Source: Kenneth Reitz on "Talk Python to Me" episode #6.) By pushing on with 3.x, Django is doing its part to drag the rest of us forward with it.

Second, this is necessary. Support for Python 2.x is supposed to end in 2020, per Guido's keynote at PyCon 2016, so Django is going to have to get in line in ~3 years one way or the other. A major version increment is a great time to introduce such a breaking change.

So ... "what this means" is that Django is doing what it has to do, which happens to coincide with the interests of the community at large. shrug I'm glad it's happening, but there shouldn't be a whole lot of drama or hand-wringing here.

Post reply on HN