Let's hope this move helps with the transitioning to Python 3. I'm not a Python programmer myself, but I'm tired of things getting hairy on Linux dependencies written in Python. It almost seems like I always got to have a Python 2 and a Python 3 version of some packages so my system doesn't break.
Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
141–150 of 390 posts
Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
#142After such a long and painful road from 2 to 3, I feel like the Python developers aimed too low in fixing the legacy problems that existed in 2. All that time for Unicode. Not concurrency or type safety or static guarantees or better lambda syntax or anything fun like that. Just Unicode.
> type safety
The text changes are type safety, but there are many more miscellaneous type safety improvements (like the default comparison between types (alphabetically by type name, except NoneType!) being removed, so now you can use set comparison operators with confidence) – plus support for type annotations.
Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
#143Earlier 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.
It was working fine for me, right up to the point I wrote an article that contained "naïve", at which point my naïve string handling (SQLite->HTML) broke horribly. Moving to Python3/Unicode was the easiest solution.
Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
#144Good. 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…
We use Appengine, which only supports python 2.7. As well as being a reason for us to stick with 2.7, I imagine Google prefers what is effectively a LTS release. If (hopefully "when") they provide 3.x, they will need significantly more support resources to keep up with continual releases.
Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 o…
Sure, but the community could continue to reject Python3 instead as it had been doing for years . It seems like it is catching on a bit now, but I hadn't really seen any good reason for it other than the upcoming EOL.
Python would have lost popularity and would have eventually died without Python 3. Being a scripting language with a relatively low barrier to entry has always been among its selling points. Text processing is a very common use-case for such languages. In a Unicode world, you can't really have a language that is supposed to be easy to use yet requires contortions and has major pitfalls in simply handling text.
Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not strange. Python developers might declare Python 2.X EOLed, but that won't stop people from using it. Like it or not, Python 2.X is not going away.
There are big companies with huge legacy 2.x codebases who will stall as long as possible. But popular libraries are dropping 2, and many new libraries aren’t supporting it to begin with. Python 2 is accelerating toward irrelevance.
You make it sound like they're holding out of some weird sense of spite. It's more reasonable to assume most large or small companies still using 2.x have not prioritized upgrading over, I don't know, staying in business?
As large libraries drop 2.x support over time they'll have to prioritize upgrading.
Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
#147Good. 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…
As a 2.7 user, I drool over f strings.
Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
#148Good. 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…
What was your reason for changing from 2.6 to 2.7?
Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
#149I was surprised to recently notice a yellow banner on the website of the very popular Requests library, which urges users to switch to Python 3. That's when I first thought switching may become inevitable. I guess this is being orchestrated behind the scenes now. https://docs.python-requests.org Still, I have no plans to switch. The only useful feature in Python 3 to me is more liberal use of unpacking. Unfortunately…
> The only useful feature in Python 3 to me is more liberal use of unpacking.
Unfortunately, this ignores composing software. Your user may use things you don’t. The result: your software won’t get used as a library. That may be fine! More power to you. Just don’t drag anyone else down to 2 with you. :)
Personally, python 2’s print keyword/statement is infuriatingly inconsistent with the rest of the language; the network modules are a mess, organizationally; there’s no async support; the unicode support makes me want to stab my eyes out. I don’t mean to convince you (I’m not very convincing...) just to give an opportunity to hedge your statement with empathy for everyone who did decide to move on. Surely you must have any commentary that doesn’t reduce to “I don’t like change”, right?
Python without py3k is just old software that is end of lifing soon, after all :)
Re: Numpy: Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
#150Earlier 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…
What was your reason for changing from 2.6 to 2.7?
There were no breaking changes in the language.