Python 3: Ten years later
archive.fosdem.org
Python 3: Ten years later
1–10 of 93 posts
Re: Python 3: Ten years later
#2No.
Re: Python 3: Ten years later
#3I wish they spent the effort on making Python 2 faster and removing GIL instead.
Re: Python 3: Ten years later
#4Python 3 is worth it just for Unicode handling. As someone using a language that is uses non-ASCII characters, thank you if you're using Python 3 and made your software more internationally compatible.
Re: Python 3: Ten years later
#5I wish they spent the effort on making Python 2 faster and removing GIL instead.
That and Unicode.
Re: Python 3: Ten years later
#6Python 3 is worth it just for Unicode handling. As someone using a language that is uses non-ASCII characters, thank you if you're using Python 3 and made your software more internationally compatible.
...or you could just use the unicode type in Python 2; like: all of my Python 2 software handled languages in other character sets correctly (and yes: this was stress tested often as I have had many many users from China and the Middle East). There was absolutely nothing wrong with Python 2 and Unicode, and if anything Python 3 just made a bunch of stuff impossible to do correctly (in particular encodings for filenames) until years later (I think Python 3.4 or something is when they finally got their Unicode shit together; meanwhile, Python 2 worked great).
Re: Python 3: Ten years later
#7Random scaremongers. Just look at pypi
Re: Python 3: Ten years later
#8Python 3 is worth it just for Unicode handling. As someone using a language that is uses non-ASCII characters, thank you if you're using Python 3 and made your software more internationally compatible.
...or you could just use the unicode type in Python 2; like: all of my Python 2 software handled languages in other character sets correctly (and yes: this was stress tested often as I have had many many users from China and the Middle East). There was absolutely nothing wrong with Python 2 and Unicode, and if anything Python 3 just made a bunch of stuff impossible to do correctly (in particular encodings for filenam…
Good for you, but that isn't how it usually worked. Python 3 has made my life easier, but if you really think "There was absolutey nothing wrong with Python 2 and Unicode", I doubt I'll be able to convince you. So I'll simply say again: thank you Python 3 maintainers and developers, it's a huge help to me.
Re: Python 3: Ten years later
#9Python 3 is worth it just for Unicode handling. As someone using a language that is uses non-ASCII characters, thank you if you're using Python 3 and made your software more internationally compatible.
...or you could just use the unicode type in Python 2; like: all of my Python 2 software handled languages in other character sets correctly (and yes: this was stress tested often as I have had many many users from China and the Middle East). There was absolutely nothing wrong with Python 2 and Unicode, and if anything Python 3 just made a bunch of stuff impossible to do correctly (in particular encodings for filenam…
Except doing the right thing by default is important, and the reality is that Python 3 code is way more likely to handle Unicode correctly, which is what we want.
People constantly complain, but honestly changes like Python 3 have to happen - the alternative is just another completely new language taking over instead.
Re: Python 3: Ten years later
#10Yes. And I guess it could have gone worth. On the other hand, I don't expect the community in a mood to embark on Python 4 any time soon, though it would make sense, in terms of version numbers and time passed.