341–350 of 733 posts
Thank God. It's been really annoying having to add parenthesis to all the print statements when I accidently download a python 2 script.
I've found that the 2to3 script will do this. The real pain is finding everything that now has to be bytes instead of string.
On the topic of large companies still using Python 2, I would love to hear about Splunk's upgrade plans. They have the following[1] on their SDK page about upgrading, but my understanding is their entire platform is still on Python 2. I've upgraded a number of projects at my work to Python 3 this year, but nothing that 2-3 developers couldn't do in a few weeks. Can only imagine the headache of migrating something the…
Granted I don't work at Splunk anymore, but did recently. They were definitely working hard on migrating everything to python3, and if I remember, they had a planned roll out where python2/python3 would co-exist. However, if you've been using the python SDK for Splunk - its been supporting python3 for a few years already ( https://github.com/splunk/splunk-sdk-python/commit/4503db961... ) See this blog post: https://w…
I honestly had no idea the SDK has supported Python 3 for this long. Granted, I haven't worked with it since 2015, but still surprised I missed that. Glad to hear they are making such good progress.
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.
One thing that confuses me about Python is just how many projects don't specify if the app is supposed to use 2 or 3, and the correct answer isn't 'either'. Check out something from Github, only to find I actually do need Python 2.7 or something. Is it that Python developers assume everyone will just intuit the version, or is there a default?
For example, I decided to only support Python3 going forward. I've had person once open a PR to add python2 support, but I politely declined[2]. As such, PyPI shows that only 3.5+ is supported[3].
[1] https://github.com/RPGillespie6/fastcov/blob/master/setup.cf...
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot agree enough. As a casual python user, it is quite common to stumble in some issue, after somme googling land in a doc page, try my solution, and find it does not work. Then googling after the failed solution, noticing that the previous doc page was describing a Python 2 feature that do not exists (or works different) in Python 3.
Me three! It happens all too often that an example Python script fails in one, then succeeds in the other. I'm also a casual Python user, trying to ramp up because of its obvious popularity and utility. I wish that the basic syntactical changes could have been designed to be more backward-compatible. But, eventually I suppose, python2 will just be a footnote in history.
I just wish they'd named it something different. If there's neither forward nor backward compatibility, I'd argue they're not the same language and should not have the same name.
> We need to sunset Python 2 so we can help Python users. We need to so we can . That statement is boilerplate manipulative garbage.. its ok to speak this way because you agree with the goal ?
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?
Food for thought, anyway.
One thing that confuses me about Python is just how many projects don't specify if the app is supposed to use 2 or 3, and the correct answer isn't 'either'. Check out something from Github, only to find I actually do need Python 2.7 or something. Is it that Python developers assume everyone will just intuit the version, or is there a default?
Rule of thumb is that no version == python2, either because it pre-dates 3 or because the developer's concept of python is "what happens when I type python at the shell" so it's still 2. It's often a big red flag about quality; competent Python developers find it natural to state py3 support upfront (or lack thereof) because they know it matters.
Recently though, I have been running into more and more projects that don't specify the version and are built using Python 3. I also used your rule of thumb, so seeing this was kind of surprising. Wonder if it's just the mentality shift that Python3 == Default?