Python 2.x vs 3.x use survey

#1

Post by janzer » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 2:11 PM UTC

Python 2.x vs 3.x use survey
surveymonkey.com

Re: Python 2.x vs 3.x use survey

#2

Post by dec0dedab0de » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 2:56 PM UTC

Missing a question. "Would you switch to python 3 if they brought back the print statement"

Edit: I really just like the statement for the interpreter, and IPython Notebook. To me the statement syntax feels less like programming, and more like using a computer.

Re: Python 2.x vs 3.x use survey

#3

Post by viraptor » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 3:00 PM UTC

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #2

Missing a question. "Would you switch to python 3 if they brought back the print statement" Edit: I really just like the statement for the interpreter, and IPython Notebook. To me the statement syntax feels less like programming, and more like using a computer.

Is there some story behind it? It looks like the smallest issue out of the whole migration. (especially with from __future__ import print_function)

Re: Python 2.x vs 3.x use survey

#4

Post by sp332 » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 3:03 PM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #3

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #2

Missing a question. "Would you switch to python 3 if they brought back the print statement" Edit: I really just like the statement for the interpreter, and IPython Notebook. To me the statement syntax feels less like programming, and more like using a computer.

Is there some story behind it? It looks like the smallest issue out of the whole migration. (especially with from __future__ import print_function)

I think people would prefer "from __past__ import print_statement" in 3.x.

Re: Python 2.x vs 3.x use survey

#5

Post by d0vs » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 3:07 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #4

viraptor wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there some story behind it? It looks like the smallest issue out of the whole migration. (especially with from __future__ import print_function)

I think people would prefer "from __past__ import print_statement" in 3.x.

Why the hell?

Re: Python 2.x vs 3.x use survey

#6

Post by infocollector » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 3:08 PM UTC

Where are the real-time results? :)

Re: Python 2.x vs 3.x use survey

#7

Post by viraptor » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 3:10 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #4

viraptor wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there some story behind it? It looks like the smallest issue out of the whole migration. (especially with from __future__ import print_function)

I think people would prefer "from __past__ import print_statement" in 3.x.

That's why I'm asking really - not only those two would be pretty much equivalent, there's really nothing that can be expressed with one, but not the other. I mean that's kind of like saying "would you use it if they called the binary snake instead of python3" - what's the reason apart from personal preference for the syntax?

Re: Python 2.x vs 3.x use survey

#8

Post by sp332 » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 3:13 PM UTC

d0vs wrote: post #5

sp332 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people would prefer "from __past__ import print_statement" in 3.x.

Why the hell?

I don't know, but it bugs people. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6987309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6985792

Re: Python 2.x vs 3.x use survey

#9

Post by ddebernardy » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 3:15 PM UTC

The survey is missing sets of answers for users who rejected or moved away from python because they were turned off by the disconnect between core devs and the community when python 3 got released.

Re: Python 2.x vs 3.x use survey

#10

Post by Kliment » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 3:18 PM UTC

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #2

Missing a question. "Would you switch to python 3 if they brought back the print statement" Edit: I really just like the statement for the interpreter, and IPython Notebook. To me the statement syntax feels less like programming, and more like using a computer.

I don't mind the print statement/function thing but I am bothered by the pain when dealing with byte strings. I use Python to talk to hardware that doesn't speak unicode, the contortions I have to go through to get byte strings to behave correctly on py3 are frustrating. I have no problem with the default string being unicode, but why can't byte strings be implemented like the unicode strings were done on py2.x?