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

381–390 of 733 posts

Re: Sunsetting Python 2

#381

Post by mixmastamyk »

radlad wrote: post #312
lvh wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the easiest compared to what? Certainly not a Python point release. A couple of points: 1. Python core dev pretended Python 3 was good and ready by, like, 3.1. It wasn't. 2. While your problem may have been painless (I'm glad), that doesn't mean that everyone who complained was just complaining. (I use Python 3 as the default now, but as someone intimately involved with an async IO library at the time it came…

> Python core dev pretended Python 3 was good and ready by, like, 3.1. It wasn't. I would expect any stable release of software to be "good and ready." Can you explain what was wrong with Python 3.0 and 3.1? > core dev did not listen to any of the problems people pointed out for _years_ What problems were those?

There were very few new features, only breaking changes. With the exception of Unicode defaults which few yet understood.

Re: Sunsetting Python 2

#382

Post by enraged_camel »

kortilla wrote: post #317
sdoering wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Well it’s a shitty analogy because a swap to torx is basically a single API change. The switch to py3 is more akin to using a new building material. Easy to start with once you know the differences, but it’s a bitch to retrofit if you depend on a method of construction incompatible with it. “Go change the dependency” is a naive ideal. Most non-tech businesses have no budget for that kind of tech debt work.

>>”Go change the dependency” is a naive ideal. Most non-tech businesses have no budget for that kind of tech debt work

If you don’t push your clients/employer to have room in their budgets for these types of things, you are the one being naive.

Re: Sunsetting Python 2

#383

Post by pudquick »

dangxiaopin wrote: post #374

I think the sunsetting is very premature. Python 3 became a stable and viable alternative only since 3.6.1 (look at the evolution of async/await before that for example). Giving it 2 years is definitely not enough for enterprise (unless their focus is startup, tinkerers and data scientists)

That being said - python 3 was released in 2008. A 12 year transition is pretty respectable.

Re: Sunsetting Python 2

#384

Post by d0mine »

marcthe12 wrote: post #316
pelario wrote: post #174

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.

I keep forgetting how have python one liner of a http server. And always when Google the python2 version will appear and always to play with the search term to get it.

python3 -m http.server

Re: Sunsetting Python 2

#385

Post by AlphaSite »

dangxiaopin wrote: post #374

I think the sunsetting is very premature. Python 3 became a stable and viable alternative only since 3.6.1 (look at the evolution of async/await before that for example). Giving it 2 years is definitely not enough for enterprise (unless their focus is startup, tinkerers and data scientists)

I mean, arguably they’ve been telling you too move for far longer. So it seems reasonable to sunset it after 10 years.

Re: Sunsetting Python 2

#386

Post by rough-sea »

rough-sea wrote: post #246

Is there even a plan to transition the chromium code base to python3?

This issue is marked as wont-fix https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=61357

Here is another issue which looks more recent and hopeful https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=942720

Re: Sunsetting Python 2

#387

Post by toomuchtodo »

bigiain wrote: post #248
Animats wrote: post #7

Some shared hosting providers are still offering Python 2.6 as their main offering.[1] Optionally, there's Python 3.2, probably the worst 3.x version. [1] https://www.hostgator.com/help/article/what-software-and-pro...

I bet there is still some shitty hosting company somewhere offering Perl4 CGI script hosting. Doesn't mean we should do anything except laugh at their incompetence (or perhaps be impressed by their ability to monetise other people's incompetence...)

Until it becomes a vector for malware. Shouldn't be laughed at, since it's going to waste person hours in the future.

Re: Sunsetting Python 2

#388

Post by gmfawcett »

normalhuman wrote: post #361
gjm11 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, "for me" and "for my use case" mean subtly but genuinely different things. "For me" highlights the fact that my preferences, character, skills, etc., are different from other people's. Something might work well for me but badly for someone else because I happen to be good at working around its quirks, or bad at noticing its faults, or just not interested in the things it doesn't do. "For my use case" highlight…

Corparate-speak that makes its way into common language is frequently justified post-hoc by subtle differences in meaning like the ones you allude to. The problem is that these differences are personal and subjective. Ask someone else, they might have a different answer. I have had the same discussion multiple times over the equally meaningless and inelegant "going forward". "Use case" comes from 90s software enginee…

You're picking much too fine a nit here. The OP's use of "personal use case" is not a distracting example of corporate speak. I knew exactly what he meant when he wrote it, and his usage did help to clarify that he was basing his statements on his use of the technology, and not on his personal feelings about it.

But if if this is a hard-stop item for you at this juncture, then we should circle back... I'm sure we can align on this going forward. ;)

Re: Sunsetting Python 2

#389

Post by geekles »

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…

You've never encountered badmouthing from a pro builder about other tool brands? How many did you talk to? Builders make the Ford v Chevy debates look minimal in comparison.

Re: Sunsetting Python 2

#390

Post by code_sloth »

kortilla wrote: post #317
sdoering wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Well it’s a shitty analogy because a swap to torx is basically a single API change. The switch to py3 is more akin to using a new building material. Easy to start with once you know the differences, but it’s a bitch to retrofit if you depend on a method of construction incompatible with it. “Go change the dependency” is a naive ideal. Most non-tech businesses have no budget for that kind of tech debt work.

> Most non-tech businesses have no budget for that kind of tech debt work.

The thing about debt is that ignoring it doesn't make it go away magically. If business relies on tech for crucial functions, it's only a matter of time before debt comes due.

Post reply on HN