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

Python 3: Ten years later

archive.fosdem.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 93 posts

Re: Python 3: Ten years later

#11

Post by bayesian_horse »

guitarbill wrote: post #8
saurik wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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.

I was always able to work out my unicode trouble in Python 2 ... eventually.

It's better now, less space to screw up.

Re: Python 3: Ten years later

#13

Post by hnauz »

saurik wrote: post #6
guitarbill wrote: post #4

Python 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…

You have to be kidding.

I don't even need to elaborate, people who actually used Python 2 know what I'm talking about.

Re: Python 3: Ten years later

#14

Post by dethos »

Definitely yes, it took some time and had some costs but nowadays python (3) is a much better language. Perhaps it could have been done differently, however it is in the past now.

Re: Python 3: Ten years later

#15

Post by josefx »

Latty wrote: post #9
saurik wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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.

The only time I had Unicode trouble with python 2 was when a library thought it had to handle encoding. Instead of just piping in bytes on one end and piping out bytes at the other it failed the moment it saw an ü on a system with german text. Unicode certainly has a place, introducing thousands of system specific error and edge cases in what should be a few lines of utility script is not one of them.

Re: Python 3: Ten years later

#17

Post by monk_e_boy »

cft wrote: post #3

I wish they spent the effort on making Python 2 faster and removing GIL instead.

Why? I teach Python and c++ to A level students. They pick up the basics in a few weeks. C++ is pretty easy. We push our students through the c++ institute exam with few issues.

Choose the right tool for the job. If you need speed, choose c

Re: Python 3: Ten years later

#18

Post by iagooar »

As an outsider who only uses Python when I need a specific tool that's only available through pip: it's still one of my biggest nightmares.

Every single time I need to install something with pip on MacOS there is this hour-long struggle with figuring out how to get the correct version of Python (2.7 vs 3) working with the correct version of pip working with the correct version of the library itself.

I don't know, I guess people who use Python regularly have figured it out, or maybe it's just a MacOS thing. For me, it's just a major PITA even 10 years after release.

Re: Python 3: Ten years later

#19

Post by walshemj »

monk_e_boy wrote: post #17
cft wrote: post #3

I wish they spent the effort on making Python 2 faster and removing GIL instead.

Why? I teach Python and c++ to A level students. They pick up the basics in a few weeks. C++ is pretty easy. We push our students through the c++ institute exam with few issues. Choose the right tool for the job. If you need speed, choose c

or Fortran

Re: Python 3: Ten years later

#20

Post by mehrdadn »

iagooar wrote: post #18

As an outsider who only uses Python when I need a specific tool that's only available through pip: it's still one of my biggest nightmares. Every single time I need to install something with pip on MacOS there is this hour-long struggle with figuring out how to get the correct version of Python (2.7 vs 3) working with the correct version of pip working with the correct version of the library itself. I don't know, I g…

I don't have a Mac and maybe you've already tried this, but just in case, you can always do python2 -m pip install ... or python3 -m pip install ... to make sure it's running within that particular Python installation. You can use the --user flag to install to your user directory as well, if the system level is annoying.
Post reply on HN