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

Sunsetting Python 2

python.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 733 posts

Re: Sunsetting Python 2

#301

Post by pavelludiq »

ueiuestu wrote: post #260
jedberg wrote: post #62

In 2015, there was no way I could have moved to Python 3. There were too many libraries I depended on that hadn't ported yet. In 2019, I feel pretty confident about using Python 3, having used it exclusively for about 18 months now. For my personal use case at least, this timeline worked out well for me. Hopefully it works out for most everyone. I can't imagine they made this decision without at least some data backi…

This makes me wonder, are there any software frameworks and languages that are specifically built for multi decade use? Where they only release security updates and no breaking changes?

Common Lisp code tends to be very stable long term. Occasionally people dig out some old code from the 60s or from really old books and papers and it will just run on modern systems. Maybe with slight modifications since the standard was finalized in 1994 and there were some changes to the way scope works in common lisp compared to say the older mac lisp, but anything written since that is written in portable standard compliant common lisp is pretty much guaranteed to continue working while there are still people willing to maintain common lisp compilers for whatever hardware exists in the future. It's actually extremely comforting to be able to come back to a project after not touching it in a few years and have every test pass even if I upgraded all the dependencies(as long as I picked the right dependencies that is :), lispers tend to be pretty conservative about breaking changes in mature and popular libraries.

Re: Sunsetting Python 2

#302

Post by jeygeethan »

shakna wrote: post #94
brobdingnagians wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tongue in cheek comment; C was released 47 years ago and is still supported... but then again, that shows a very different philosophy between system languages and scripting languages.

Very few people write pre-ANSI C code today though, and the language itself was last updated in 2011. I'm sure people wouldn't gladly accept C code written for a 47-year-old compiler today.

agreed!

Re: Sunsetting Python 2

#305

Post by [deleted] »

sdoering wrote: post #250
ken wrote: post #240

Python 2 to 3 (at least by 3.3 or so) was one of the easiest transitions I've ever done. There's a library ("six") to help, and in almost all cases you can write 2-and-3 compatible code, which means you can go piece-by-piece. (Unless your manager makes drive-by commits of py2-only code, months after you all agreed that all new code should be py3-compatible, and then leaves town for a multi-week vacation...) Dependenc…

> If we switched from phillips to torx, and your favorite tool brand didn't make torx drivers yet, you've got to either convince them to start, or switch brands. This is the best analogy I have yet read. Thanks - you nailed an argument I have had at multiple gigs/clients way to often. > Professionals don't get to use this as an excuse to badmouth torx, and stick with phillips. D'accord. Exactly. I had very fruitful d…

[deleted]

Re: Sunsetting Python 2

#306

Post by fortydegrees »

normalhuman wrote: post #235
jedberg wrote: post #62

In 2015, there was no way I could have moved to Python 3. There were too many libraries I depended on that hadn't ported yet. In 2019, I feel pretty confident about using Python 3, having used it exclusively for about 18 months now. For my personal use case at least, this timeline worked out well for me. Hopefully it works out for most everyone. I can't imagine they made this decision without at least some data backi…

> For my personal use case at least, this timeline worked out well for me. Hint for Hacker News commenters: 99% of the time, if your phrase includes the term "use case", you can safely just delete it and lose no meaning. It's just a way to say "for me" or "for them" that sounds more technical but really isn't. In this case, you could say "This timeline worked out well for me".

Same with 'utilize' -> 'use'

Re: Sunsetting Python 2

#307

Post by bradenb »

normalhuman wrote: post #235
jedberg wrote: post #62

In 2015, there was no way I could have moved to Python 3. There were too many libraries I depended on that hadn't ported yet. In 2019, I feel pretty confident about using Python 3, having used it exclusively for about 18 months now. For my personal use case at least, this timeline worked out well for me. Hopefully it works out for most everyone. I can't imagine they made this decision without at least some data backi…

> For my personal use case at least, this timeline worked out well for me. Hint for Hacker News commenters: 99% of the time, if your phrase includes the term "use case", you can safely just delete it and lose no meaning. It's just a way to say "for me" or "for them" that sounds more technical but really isn't. In this case, you could say "This timeline worked out well for me".

I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but HN has a history of comments like this that criticize other comments and add nothing to the discussion. Mine is another example, but since you got the ball rolling I figure I might as well chime in.

I think the grandparent's usage of "use case" was totally fine. It wasn't distracting and it didn't change my reading of that comment in any way, shape, or form.

Re: Sunsetting Python 2

#308

Post by xd1936 »

arendtio wrote: post #273

Does someone know if there is a way to compile python programs to some sort of static binary? I have a GPS watch and some old Python 2 script to export the data (found it online (unmaintained) a few years ago). However, when Python 2 will be sunsetted I am a bit worried that Linux distributions will stop packaging the dependencies of said script, but I would like to keep using it until the watch breaks.

You could give py2exe a try. They have an old python2 version that might work for you.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/py2exe/files/py2exe/0.6.9/

Re: Sunsetting Python 2

#309

Post by [deleted] »

oblio wrote: post #216
mantap wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You couldn't switch to Python 3 until the middle part of this decade unless the stars aligned with your dependencies, the library support wasn't there. And the first releases of Python 3 were glorified betas, the first "usable" version of Python 3 is often considered to be version 3.3 released in 2012.

2012 was 7 years ago.

[deleted]

Re: Sunsetting Python 2

#310

Post by rcarmo »

ken wrote: post #240

Python 2 to 3 (at least by 3.3 or so) was one of the easiest transitions I've ever done. There's a library ("six") to help, and in almost all cases you can write 2-and-3 compatible code, which means you can go piece-by-piece. (Unless your manager makes drive-by commits of py2-only code, months after you all agreed that all new code should be py3-compatible, and then leaves town for a multi-week vacation...) Dependenc…

I had exactly _zero_ blocking issues. The only relevant thing for me is that I keep reaching for StringIO and urlparse (and friends) and they're used differently now.

_Everything_ I relied upon, every single dependency in my projects, gradually migrated over the course of a year and nothing broke.

Furthermore, I now have asyncio, aiohttp and friends to play with, and it's been pretty good.

Post reply on HN