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

Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 390 posts

Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support

#91

Post by mjhea0 »

wybiral wrote: post #16
fredley wrote: post #10

Good. The glacial migration from Python 2 to 3 is one of the worst things about an otherwise fantastic ecosystem. The tide is turning though, with Django having already dropped support for 2, and now with Numpy too hopefully Python 2 can be properly consigned to the history books. For people wondering why it's been like this for almost a decade(!) since Python 3.0 was released: Python 3.0 was actually terrible. It la…

Yeah, for the longest time everyone kept using library support as an excuse for sticking with 2. But at this point I think it's the exception that a decent Python library doesn't support 3, rather than the rule. The only one that comes to mind for me is fabric, to be honest.

Check out http://www.pyinvoke.org

Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support

#92

Post by dwb »

username223 wrote: post #70
dwb wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very melodramatic comment for someone who clearly hasn't been keeping track of the 3.x changelogs – which pretty much all contain at least one compelling update to the language. Modern Python is v3. Legacy support drop-off is the same with any project.

I was going for "humor" more than "melodrama," but maybe I failed at both... The actual breaking changes between 2.x and early 3.x struck me as cosmetic and pointless. To compare: Perl went one way by breaking everything to essentially make a new language, and failed to get people to switch; C++ bent over backwards to maintain compatibility, and failed to fundamentally evolve the language. Python basically failed in…

I'll happily debate the merits of breaking compatibility in general, but it's boring and completely academic for Python 3 which is getting on for a decade old and has very wide community support.

Same thing every Python thread. It doesn't matter if you liked the way 3.0 was handled (and there certainly was complaint at the time too), it's what Python is now, and that's that.

Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support

#93

Post by qznc »

xapata wrote: post #61
CJefferson wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? No! Python 2 is only 17 years old. I can still run Java, C, C++ and Perl 5 (picking the first 4 languages that occur) that were written before then, with no problems.

Which version? Aren't we on Java 9 now?

That is actually Java 1.9. They decided to kind of hide the leading "1." at Java 1.5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history#Versionin...

Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support

#94

Post by ablankst »

fredley wrote: post #10

Good. The glacial migration from Python 2 to 3 is one of the worst things about an otherwise fantastic ecosystem. The tide is turning though, with Django having already dropped support for 2, and now with Numpy too hopefully Python 2 can be properly consigned to the history books. For people wondering why it's been like this for almost a decade(!) since Python 3.0 was released: Python 3.0 was actually terrible. It la…

The following example is pretty much the chief reason why I will not be porting much software to Python 3:

  $ python3 
  Python 3.6.3 (default, Oct  3 2017, 21:45:48)
  [GCC 7.2.0] on linux
  Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
  >>> 4/3
  1.3333333333333333
Python3 is basically a different language than Python 2. If I wanted to port software to a different language, I would use any number of available languages that make other kinds of improvements over Python as well. The only remaining use case for Python for me will be as a quick scripting language, and data analysis and graphing tool.

Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support

#95

Post by throwaway613834 »

jhasse wrote: post #84
CJefferson wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? No! Python 2 is only 17 years old. I can still run Java, C, C++ and Perl 5 (picking the first 4 languages that occur) that were written before then, with no problems.

Most C++ code wont compile for multiple reasons. For example using namespace std will result in errors if your code calls a function which is now part of std.

But you can get rid of compile errors pretty easily. Pretty darn different from Python where you have to run the code to find issues.

Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support

#96

Post by cpburns2009 »

ablankst wrote: post #94
fredley wrote: post #10

Good. The glacial migration from Python 2 to 3 is one of the worst things about an otherwise fantastic ecosystem. The tide is turning though, with Django having already dropped support for 2, and now with Numpy too hopefully Python 2 can be properly consigned to the history books. For people wondering why it's been like this for almost a decade(!) since Python 3.0 was released: Python 3.0 was actually terrible. It la…

The following example is pretty much the chief reason why I will not be porting much software to Python 3: $ python3 Python 3.6.3 (default, Oct 3 2017, 21:45:48) [GCC 7.2.0] on linux Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> 4/3 1.3333333333333333 Python3 is basically a different language than Python 2. If I wanted to port software to a different language, I would use any number of av…

It is a change, but you can use the // operator for floor division:

  $ python3
  Python 3.6.3 (default, Oct  3 2017, 21:16:13) 
  [GCC 7.2.0] on linux
  Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
  >>> 4//3
  1

Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support

#97

Post by kajecounterhack »

brians wrote: post #48
Figs wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, I still haven't seen a single reason to switch to Python3 beyond the fact that the original authors have gotten bored of providing security and bugfix updates and will stop in 2020. That's it. The only thing in the last decade or so of Python3's existence that even got me slightly interested in using it was asyncio, and after looking into it a bit, it frankly seems like more trouble than its worth. I know Py…

The change to string handling justifies it for me. Writing `u’foo’` everywhere is a pain, and the rest of the 2.7 model is extraordinarily prone to runtime errors. With 3.6, I don’t have those problems.

+1

Just because we learned to work around unicode issues doesn't mean they're not completely bonkers in 2.7

Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support

#98

Post by _wwz4 »

Figs wrote: post #43
fredley wrote: post #10

Good. The glacial migration from Python 2 to 3 is one of the worst things about an otherwise fantastic ecosystem. The tide is turning though, with Django having already dropped support for 2, and now with Numpy too hopefully Python 2 can be properly consigned to the history books. For people wondering why it's been like this for almost a decade(!) since Python 3.0 was released: Python 3.0 was actually terrible. It la…

Frankly, I still haven't seen a single reason to switch to Python3 beyond the fact that the original authors have gotten bored of providing security and bugfix updates and will stop in 2020. That's it. The only thing in the last decade or so of Python3's existence that even got me slightly interested in using it was asyncio, and after looking into it a bit, it frankly seems like more trouble than its worth. I know Py…

why on earth is it a good thing that people are trying to kill off Python2?

Because the community is fragmented and that weakens language adoption, productivity, and enjoyment.

The 2-3 schism in Python has been a pain to deal with for years. I use Python casually here and there, but I'm so sick of trying to do something quickly in Python and finding out that I'm on a machine that only has 2 but the module I need is only for 3 or having the bulk of my app written in 3 but the only version of a module I need is for 2.

Same goes for examples you find on the Internet to do a particular thing. Ooops, it's 2.x syntax/modules so you have to fix it up for 3. Ooops, it's 3 syntax/modules so you have to fix it up for 2.

For the good of any computer language, old versions need to eventually die off.

Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support

#99

Post by makapuf »

hyperbovine wrote: post #39
hetman wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It replaces one set of quirky hacks for a different set, just in different parts of your code. So in a way it's no worse. I have to say I was sceptical of Ruby 1.9's new approach to Unicode thinking Python 3.0's approach looked much cleaner. It does on paper. In practice though, I have to admit I get where Ruby was going with it all now.

I wonder if this has anything to do with Matz being Japanese. I do my best to avoid Unicode at all costs because as a native English speaker ASCII was working out great for me.

Touché.

Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support

#100

Post by Figs »

nas wrote: post #75
Figs wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, I still haven't seen a single reason to switch to Python3 beyond the fact that the original authors have gotten bored of providing security and bugfix updates and will stop in 2020. That's it. The only thing in the last decade or so of Python3's existence that even got me slightly interested in using it was asyncio, and after looking into it a bit, it frankly seems like more trouble than its worth. I know Py…

> Frankly, I still haven't seen a single reason to switch to Python3 beyond the fact that the original authors have gotten bored of providing security and bugfix updates and will stop in 2020. That's it. It seems pretty clear now that 3rd party library developers are going to stop releasing packages that support 2.x and target only 3.x. Isn't that a bigger problem for Python 2.7 hold outs? Originally, I was not super…

> Isn't that a bigger problem for Python 2.7 hold outs?

Yes, but it seemed like libraries (such as NumPy here) were mainly switching because of the EOL of Python2 rather than for any actual benefit provided by Python3. I've considered that as more of "Python 3 is a bad thing" by splitting the ecosystem further, and creating additional churn and rework of existing projects. Thus my question of why people seem to think this is a good thing now -- i.e. what has changed in Python 3.6 that they're happy to do this now when they were pissed off about it a couple years ago?

I've gotten a couple interesting responses here, and I hope for more. I wasn't really aware of f-strings -- that does seems like a nice-to-have feature -- and I wasn't aware of improved JSON serialization performance either.

> If you tried Python 3 a few releases ago, you should give it another go. It has matured a lot.

I may do that.

Post reply on HN