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

41–50 of 80 posts

Re: Python 3 Wall of Shame

#41

Post by lusis »

zeynel1 wrote: post #20

"Get the source for this GAE app at google code." Google App Engine should be in the list as well. GAE supports Python 2.5.

Google only supports 2.5 for anything python related. Take a look at the python protobuf client:

http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=66&q=...

Don't expect google to upgrade anytime soon.

Re: Python 3 Wall of Shame

#42

Post by jnoller »

mapleoin wrote: post #24

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.

The list is horribly wrong and misleading. The author and others are working to rectify it. There's a lot of packages on there that simply don't belong there.

Re: Python 3 Wall of Shame

#43

Post by jnoller »

rbanffy wrote: post #36
paganel wrote: post #13

Funny to see zope.interface on that list. I remember back in 2005, when Zope 3 had just been launched, about how everyone who mattered in the Zope world would say things like "only stupid, retrograde people won't switch to Zope3". I guess the stupid people won, because 6 years on Zope is like the Cobol of Python web frameworks. I just hope the same thing won't happen to Python itself.

Let's just call Zope 2 the Common Lisp of Python frameworks... I guess it survives mostly because Plone needs it. Zope 3 and Grok are pretty cool.

twisted and a few others rely on zope.interface too. I never saw the draw personally

Re: Python 3 Wall of Shame

#44

Post by jnoller »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #28

The real issue is that for both developers and library maintainers, moving to Python3 entails a lot of aggravation for a comparatively small net benefit.

Porting is actually fairly trivial in many cases. If you go and look at most of the porting stories for Python 3, you'll find the authors saying "I was worried it would be hard... but it was really easy".

Re: Python 3 Wall of Shame

#45

Post by anamax »

lusis wrote: post #41
zeynel1 wrote: post #20

"Get the source for this GAE app at google code." Google App Engine should be in the list as well. GAE supports Python 2.5.

Google only supports 2.5 for anything python related. Take a look at the python protobuf client: http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=66&q=... Don't expect google to upgrade anytime soon.

Python 2.7 is now on the roadmap.

http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/roadmap.html

Re: Python 3 Wall of Shame

#46

Post by iclelland »

yuvadam wrote: post #2

Let's admit it. Once Django is Py3K-ready, all other projects will follow suit.

If this is true, then there's a bit of a circular dependency Django is a pretty high-level project, though, with a lot of other dependencies of its own. I believe that the stated position of the Django core team is that there's no point in porting Django until some (all?) of the core dependencies are functional on Py3k. This, at least means wsgi and the database connectors, and possibly more.

So I hope that the rest of the Python community isn't sitting around waiting for Django to take the lead here.

Re: Python 3 Wall of Shame

#47

Post by sigzero »

muuh-gnu wrote: post #23
dagw wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well...eventually 2.7.x is going to be it except for security patches. The future of Python is the 3 branch and I am confident that everyone will port. You have to keep in mind though that P2->P3 was laid out as a 5 year process. We are only half way through it at this point.

Re: Python 3 Wall of Shame

#48

Post by kbutler »

dermatthias wrote: post #10
yuvadam wrote: post #2

Let's admit it. Once Django is Py3K-ready, all other projects will follow suit.

There is a poll about p3k compatibility on python.org: http://python.org/3kpoll Django on top, followed by wxpython, scipy and mathplotlib.

Anyone else find it amusing that there aren't quite 3000 votes on the Python 3000 wishlist?

Package Number of Votes Django 760 wxPython 423 scipy 366 matplotlib 328 PIL 295 py2exe 243 Twisted 169 PyGTK 157 Pygame 117 web2py 91 ---- 2949

OK, probably just me.

kb

Re: Python 3 Wall of Shame

#50

Post by phaylon »

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 might mean they'll have to support two versions for a longer while though. Which also means making sure all community patches are provided for both branches, or manually integrating them.
Post reply on HN