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

About Python 3

alexgaynor.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 358 posts

Re: About Python 3

#61

Post by gpvos »

steveklabnik wrote: post #19
GuiA wrote: post #7

Python 3 came from a good place, and it definitely fixes many problems that sorely needed fixing, but it was doomed to failure from the start (and many developers said that in 2008 already). For all intents and purposes, Python 3 is pretty much a new, separate programming language. Sure, it's very close to Python 2.x, but you don't have out of the box retro-compatibility so that pretty much kills it right there. Pyth…

This sounds remarkably like Perl 5/6.

Nobody expects Perl 6 to be widely used yet. The Python community seems to expect Python 3 to be widely used by now.

Re: About Python 3

#62

Post by jshen »

w1ntermute wrote: post #51
themgt wrote: post #33

It's fascinating to compare this with ruby 1.9, released around the same time, but seemingly with a slightly better cost/benefit ratio, having nice new features and also significantly improved performance, and with ruby 1.8 being deprecated with a lot more speed and force. It got everyone to actually make the switch, and then ruby 2.0 came along, largely compatible and with a more improvements, and now ruby 2.1 seems…

> You could analogize it to Apple with OS 9 -> OS 10.9, versus Microsoft with people still running XP No, you couldn't. The difference in upgrade rates between Windows and OS X is primarily due to their differing customer bases. Windows is very popular in enterprise, which avoids unnecessary upgrades in order to ensure compatibility with in-house software. OS X, however, has almost no presence in enterprise, and cons…

Mags have a significant presence in enterprise these days.

Re: About Python 3

#63

Post by claystu »

ak217 wrote: post #32

I feel frustrated too, but I think Ubuntu 14.04 will tip the scales (it ships with Python 3 by default). Also, the core devs got at least some things right with Python 3.3 by making it a lot easier to write code that targets 2.7 and 3.3 at the same time. In retrospect, that should have been the focus much sooner.

As a Linux user, I'd like to believe that Linux distros enjoy this kind of influence, but I honestly can't see how.

How many people are still on Windows? How many are on OSX? How many are comfortable in 2.x and couldn't care less about new features?

Python 3.x may be better in some ways, but it just doesn't look better enough.

I wonder how long it will be before the 2.x community goes its own way like Perl 5.

Re: About Python 3

#64

Post by tristanperry »

I'm looking to learn Python, so it's a pitty that there's a schism of sorts within Python.

This sort of reminds me about PHP 6: a project with initially high momentum and various ideas to clean up the language. But over time it became clear that upgrading from the land of magic quote and register globals (PHP 4) to PHP 6 would have been too much of a jump.

So instead they slowly started deprecating and making improvements within the PHP 5 stream, and bit-by-bit PHP has moved on.

The change from Python 2 to 3 doesn't look dramatic, but I can understand why there's an air of lethargy regarding the upgrade.

Re: About Python 3

#65

Post by gpvos »

agentultra wrote: post #39

I like Python 3. I prefer it. It is better to program in than 2.x. Iterators everywhere, no more unicode/encoding vagueness, sub-generators and more. It is a much better language and it's hard to see how it could have evolved without a clean break from its roots. However it has been interesting to follow over the last five years. It has been a sort of, "what if p5 broke the CPAN," scenario played out in real-life. Br…

Is there any serious effort to port, say, the top 1000 most popular/important packages to Python 3?

Re: About Python 3

#66

Post by dec0dedab0de »

revskill wrote: post #52

I wonder why Django doesn't have the same strength (both technically and community) as Rails ? I think the philosophy "Everything is an object" makes sense actually, and in combination with functional programming built-in really makes Ruby is perfect choice for non-professional programmer (even woman) to love coding.

I may be wrong, but I think Rails has a way higher percentage of total Ruby use than Django does of total Python use.

Re: About Python 3

#67

Post by mkolodny »

I'd love to use Python 3, but missing library support is definitely the killer for me. There's a list of py3-compatible/incompatible libraries here: http://python3wos.appspot.com/.

If we can pick off a few of those top py3-incompatible libraries, I'd be willing to bet that a shift to py3 would follow. Many of the libraries have long-standing py3 port branches if you'd like to help the effort. For example: https://github.com/boto/boto/tree/py3kport/py3kport.

As far as I'm concerned, there's really very little in the way of me using Python 3. But what is in the way matters. Starting a project without being able to use boto, fabric and gvent would be tough. I like the idea of being able to import Python 2 libraries until they're finally ported over to Python 3 a lot.

Re: About Python 3

#68

Post by dragonwriter »

claystu wrote: post #63
ak217 wrote: post #32

I feel frustrated too, but I think Ubuntu 14.04 will tip the scales (it ships with Python 3 by default). Also, the core devs got at least some things right with Python 3.3 by making it a lot easier to write code that targets 2.7 and 3.3 at the same time. In retrospect, that should have been the focus much sooner.

As a Linux user, I'd like to believe that Linux distros enjoy this kind of influence, but I honestly can't see how. How many people are still on Windows? How many are on OSX? How many are comfortable in 2.x and couldn't care less about new features? Python 3.x may be better in some ways, but it just doesn't look better enough. I wonder how long it will be before the 2.x community goes its own way like Perl 5.

> How many people are still on Windows?

Windows doesn't ship with an OS-default version of Python and doesn't include OS features that depend on the OS-default version of python, so its not as influential in that regard. But, in that regard, the inclusion of the multiple-install-compatible python launcher in the basic Windows install of Python 3.3 probably improves the Python 3.x story on Windows, since it eases the multiple install pain and makes it easier to work with Python 3.x while having some Python 2.x software in use on Windows.

Re: About Python 3

#70

Post by [deleted] »

claudius wrote: post #40
justinph wrote: post #5

Something that might help is OS vendors shipping with 3.x installed, rather than 2.x most seem to. OS X ships with 2.7.5. For a casual python user, sticking with what is there and working is safe, especially when the benefits of 3.x are unclear.

OS X (at least the version on the Macbook I got from IT) also ships with a horribly outdated Bash, so I don’t think it healthy to put it up as a standard for anything…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN