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

Python 3 Wall of Shame

python3wos.appspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 80 posts

Re: Python 3 Wall of Shame

#21

Post by agentultra »

"Wall of Shame," sounds harsh. However I don't think it's entirely inappropriate. The premise is that it has been two years since py3k has been release and the community has little to show for it. One would think two whole years would be enough time to port a library. Especially if most of the fundamental challenges of doing so are matters of syntax (not in all cases I'm sure) and changing some names.

OTOH, maybe the community still refuses to switch? Maybe py3k is viewed as "that bad," that no one wants to bother with it?

FWIW, py3k is quite fast now and the language "enhancements" do make a significant difference. I actually quite like it now that my primary OS, Arch Linux, gave me the boot and made py3 the default interpreter. Many of my projects are still in py2.7, but I have been working on converting them. Sometimes I get lucky and all I need to do is run 2to3!

Re: Python 3 Wall of Shame

#22

Post by garnaat »

DeusExMachina wrote: post #17
garnaat wrote: post #12

"Wall of Shame"? Really? As someone who's project appears on this list (and in the WRONG color) all I can say is that I don't think anyone is trying to dis Python 3.x. Support will come when a critical mass of developers are using 3.x. I know it's kind of a chicken and egg problem but this seems to be saying that it's the package developer's fault and I don't really think that's fair or true.

I think it's not really a chicken and egg problem though. From a user point of view, using Python 3 looks like giving up on a lot of libraries, which in turn means a lot more work to accomplish the same things. It's a big effort that does not benefit anyone. If switching to a new version of a language makes my life harder, then I will not, especially if working on a startup or a project which is time critical. On the…

It's a chicken/egg problem in that developers are saying I'm not porting because no one is using Python 3.x and users are saying I'm not moving to Python 3.x because none of my packages are available.

I can't just move to Python 3.x and abandon 2.x. And I have not been able to find a way to have boto support both with the same code base. So, then it becomes a matter of maintaining multiple versions of boto. Just shoot me now. If the barriers weren't so high, more packages would be running in Python3.x.

Re: Python 3 Wall of Shame

#23

Post by muuh-gnu »

dagw wrote: post #9
tonetheman wrote: post #7

funny... everyone needs to run out and convert so that the 3 people using py3k can have new packages... doh

And the reason only 3 people are using py3k is that there are no packages for it...

So what is the point in using py3 then? They either should keep using the version with the largest library base, in order to profit from other's momentum, or invest their own ressources (money/time/skill) into making a py3-only library attractive enough to pull everybody else against their will.

What they're doing right now, is not investing anything at all to make py3 more attractive, but simply being loud and vocal and trying to coerce the majority through social pressure to do work to support their version of choice, even if there is no actually noticeable benefit in for them to do so.

Re: Python 3 Wall of Shame

#24

Post by mapleoin »

This is a really good list for people who want to get involved in a Python project. I only wish it were bigger and it would contain smaller projects as well.

DecoratorTools shouldn't really be on that list though, since it doesn't make any sense for py3.

Re: Python 3 Wall of Shame

#25

Post by wisty »

garnaat wrote: post #22
DeusExMachina wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's not really a chicken and egg problem though. From a user point of view, using Python 3 looks like giving up on a lot of libraries, which in turn means a lot more work to accomplish the same things. It's a big effort that does not benefit anyone. If switching to a new version of a language makes my life harder, then I will not, especially if working on a startup or a project which is time critical. On the…

It's a chicken/egg problem in that developers are saying I'm not porting because no one is using Python 3.x and users are saying I'm not moving to Python 3.x because none of my packages are available. I can't just move to Python 3.x and abandon 2.x. And I have not been able to find a way to have boto support both with the same code base. So, then it becomes a matter of maintaining multiple versions of boto. Just shoo…

Yep, everyone has limited time and resources. Another problem is that many libraries have dependencies, and they can't start porting until the dependencies have been ported (or a replacement is found). Finally, library developers only want to develop for languages they like using, and who likes a language with no good libraries?

Re: Python 3 Wall of Shame

#26

Post by overgard »

I think a large part of the problem is that there aren't strong incentives to switch to Python 3, or at least that was the case when it first came out, and first impressions tend to matter. To me, as a user, it looked like "slower and none of my libraries will work."

A better way to sell python 3 should be to highlight python 2's pain points, and show why 3 is better. If they were to show a significant performance gain over Python 2.x, or some sort of killer new feature (ie, get rid of "self" everywhere) I suspect python 3 would get a lot more traction. As it is, Python 2 as a language works just fine for me, and most of what I want (a better interpreter) are being addressed by the PyPy project.

Re: Python 3 Wall of Shame

#27

Post by wisty »

agentultra wrote: post #21

"Wall of Shame," sounds harsh. However I don't think it's entirely inappropriate. The premise is that it has been two years since py3k has been release and the community has little to show for it. One would think two whole years would be enough time to port a library. Especially if most of the fundamental challenges of doing so are matters of syntax (not in all cases I'm sure) and changing some names. OTOH, maybe the…

Guido should have stuck with his original plan - keep updating python 2.X till it's converged to python 3.

Deprecate print statements, warn if you don't import division from __future__, and so on. Maybe even leave a 2.X compatibility mode: `from __past__ import print_statement`.

I guess unicode is a sticky point though. I really don't know what can be done about except rant about how hard unicode is.

Re: Python 3 Wall of Shame

#30

Post by moe »

It will be interesting to see how Guido et al will judge the py3k transition-strategy in hindsight and whether they will repeat it or move back to a more traditional, incremental development model.
Post reply on HN