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

101–110 of 358 posts

Re: About Python 3

#101

Post by agentultra »

ak217 wrote: post #28
steveklabnik wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds remarkably like Perl 5/6.

Perl 6 is vaporware. Python 3 is here, it's widely supported, it's faster than Python 2.7, and while Guido didn't do us any favors with his migration strategy, I don't see what the big deal is. Python 3.3 makes writing code that is compatible with both almost trivial. People aren't using Python 3 enough because it's not the default in Debian/Ubuntu. That's about to change with Ubuntu 14.04. I expect that to tip the s…

> People aren't using Python 3 enough because it's not the default in Debian/Ubuntu. That's about to change with Ubuntu 14.04. I expect that to tip the scales.

I doubt it will tip that much. The enterprise customers we develop for still ship on CentOS and have auditing departments that have to scour each library and package a system depends on. Adding a dependency hurts in this environment. These institutions only upgrade their interpreters once every 5 - 8 years if you're lucky.

Re: About Python 3

#102

Post by jemeshsu »

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.

Rails is in downward trending, where Django is steady and slowly increasing over the years: http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Ruby%20Rails%2C%20Pyt...

Re: About Python 3

#103

Post by claudius »

plorkyeran wrote: post #48
claudius wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OS X (at least the version on the Macbook I got from IT) also ships with a horribly outdated Bash, so I don’t think it healthy to put it up as a standard for anything…

In that case (and all of the other GNU stuff) it ships with the final GPLv2 version, since Apple is unwilling to ship GPLv3 code.

Is there a particular reason for that? I can understand not wanting to ship GPLv3 code if it is embedded sufficiently deeply into the hardware, but it shouldn’t be a problem to ship GPLv3 Bash, as the user can change the binary delivered on the harddrive at any time?

Re: About Python 3

#104

Post by danso »

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…

But were the changes between 1.8 and 1.9 in Ruby as significant as 2 to 3 to Python? Or even 1.8 to 2.0?

I know in Ruby 1.8.x to 1.9, some major changes in my day-to-day coding involved Hash (elimination of hash-rocket, and ordered key-value pairs by default)...but I can't think of anything off hand that required me to rewrite my own libraries. And between 1.9 and 2.0...I've been switching between machines that have 1.9.3x and 2.0x and can't even tell a difference. Obviously, I'm not doing any legacy-maintenance in this situation, but it seemed that Python's changes, while breaking, were also significant improvements and changes to the API that mandated changes in implementation?

Speaking as a non-Python-dev...I've been wanting to get more into Python, at least to write routines that take advantage of scipy and numpy and all that goodness...but the process of deciding between 2.x and 3.x and keeping the steps/compromises in order can be beguiling.

Re: About Python 3

#105

Post by 3pt14159 »

If Guido had just left division the way it worked in 2.7 we'd all have moved by now. Everything else the community is fine with, but it is enough of a sticking point for some people that they can't be bothered to make the switch.

Re: About Python 3

#106

Post by dded »

daemonk wrote: post #34

Rename it as something else. Call it Cobra or something. Also remove all backward compatibility features. Maybe by taking away it's association with python, it will have a better chance.

> Rename it as something else. Call it Cobra or something.

More likely, if there indeed is never a 2.8, is that Python 2 would eventually be forked and renamed. "Rattler" would make a better pun.

Re: About Python 3

#107

Post by devicenull »

falcolas wrote: post #82

As a development lead, we recently abandoned our plans to migrate to Python 3. Here's a short summary of why: To begin the migration, we needed to move from Python 2.6 (which is the default on our CentOS6 production boxes) to Python 2.7. This transition is actually rather hard. We can't use the packages provided in CentOS base or EPEL, because they are all complied against Python 2.6. To re-produce all of our package…

Using Python2.7 on CentOS really isn't that hard. Install FPM, and run `fpm --python-bin python2.7 --python-easyinstall easy_install-2.7 -n MySQL-python27 -s python -t rpm -d python27 MySQL-python` . You'll find a MySQL-python27 RPM sitting in the current directory. Repeat for any package you want.

You can avoid compiling the core python27 language yourself by using the python27 packages from IUS.

Re: About Python 3

#108

Post by marcosdumay »

falcolas wrote: post #82

As a development lead, we recently abandoned our plans to migrate to Python 3. Here's a short summary of why: To begin the migration, we needed to move from Python 2.6 (which is the default on our CentOS6 production boxes) to Python 2.7. This transition is actually rather hard. We can't use the packages provided in CentOS base or EPEL, because they are all complied against Python 2.6. To re-produce all of our package…

Even Debian is using Pyhon 2.7 for a while already, looks like CentOS is being quite slow.

Re: About Python 3

#110

Post by laureny »

To make matters worse, I'm seeing an increasing number of Python programmers switch to Go and I predict that Go will slowly replace Python 2 over the next few years.
Post reply on HN