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

Python 2.x vs 3.x use survey

surveymonkey.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–119 of 119 posts

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

#111

Post by ddebernardy »

falcolas wrote: post #36
ddebernardy wrote: post #9

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.

I can't say I understand this attitude. It's analogous to cutting off your nose to spite your face. Both Python 2 and 3 are actively supported, and there's a clear migration path defined. The migration isn't complete yet, but it's progressing at a development friendly pace. I say this as someone still on Python 2.6 due to environment restrictions.

Well, get over it and understand it...

Speaking personally, I sought to move away to a utf8-friendly language from php a few years back, and seriously considered Python back then. It came highly recommended on Stack Overflow.

Upon investigating the matter further, however, it became clear that the community suffered greatly from the divide introduced by Python 3. As if the core devs went in one direction while the community at large went in another.

It wasn't exactly a welcoming place for a newcomer. As if you needed to pick sides on day one. I ended up selecting another language and have never looked back.

If anything, I'm bemused that the debate still rages on years later. And I can readily picture seasoned Python users being put off by the same, and looking elsewhere for a saner ecosystem.

Case in point: As some have already hinted in the thread, the point is becoming moot nowadays, not so much because the community is slowly making the switch to Python 3, but because community members are moving en masse to Node, Go, Scala, Clojure, etc.

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

#112

Post by DonGateley »

crag wrote: post #25

"Do you think Python 3.x was a mistake?" That's where I stop filling out the survey. And that's the python community biggest problem. Moving forward, everyone needs to pick a version (and I'd pick 3). A new user just sits and spins his head. Even the training materials are all over the place.

Depends on how you interpret "mistake." I don't think that improving the language is necessarily a mistake, but the way they did it is a mistake. It should have been an absolute requirement that, one way or t'other, a user could employ 2.x libraries transparently. No change should have been allowed until and unless a way was found to make it not impact backward ecosystem compatibility. This is a law of nature that was ignored and 3.x is paying the price that anyone could have predicted (and most did.)

Not ensuring library compatibility was lazy, egotistical arrogance and will ultimately relegate 3.x to being a historical footnote.

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

#113

Post by shadowmint »

kbenson wrote: post #83
PythonicAlpha wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, if it is a library, that you use all over your code. And you will not risk that your project fails, just because somebody wants to use only the newest stuff. Nobody in a time critical project (when it is not?), will switch from Py2 to Py3 just because it is the most recent version of Python and replace at least one library that is written in C and does not work in Py3. Either you have to replace the whole lib or…

But the GP comment wasn't just addressing porting projects (which I would understand), it was "one single dependency that doesn't support py3 is the death knell to using it for anything, EVER " (emphasis theirs). That's a fairly strong opinion to take, and in my opinion, goes far enough to be ridiculous.

When you have the option of starting a project with py2 or py3 and you choose py3, and discover X days into the project that you have a broken dependency that wouldn't have been broken in py2, you've just increased the cost and time to deliver the project by an unknown factor.

Perhaps for some projects, that factor is small.

...and for some of them, it turns out to be huge. So big you have to roll back to py2, and suck it up for lost time/money spent doing so.

When you have a project that is time/cost critical, that risk is absolutely unacceptable.

If you're working on your own projects, in your own time, sure thing. ...but professionally, on project work? No. Never.

Until you get the reverse, where continuing to work in py2 introduces an equivalent risk, because new libraries are 'py3 only', there is no justification whatsoever for using python 3.

Worse, because of this, when you're writing libraries, you have to make your py3 code py2 compatible, which means using the syntax-feature subset that works with py2, which basically defeats the entire purpose of migrating to py3.

Kivy is great example. The next version is going to support py3; great! ...but it's going to continue to natively support py2 on the same code base; ie. no new python 3 features. It will simply 'work' under the python 3.X interpreters.

That's why I will probably not end up using python3 in any professional work for the foreseeable future.

(If you think that's ridiculous... what can I say? Clearly you haven't worked under time/cost pressures where you have to be personally responsible for delivering on time and budget)

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

#114

Post by kbenson »

shadowmint wrote: post #113
kbenson wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the GP comment wasn't just addressing porting projects (which I would understand), it was "one single dependency that doesn't support py3 is the death knell to using it for anything, EVER " (emphasis theirs). That's a fairly strong opinion to take, and in my opinion, goes far enough to be ridiculous.

When you have the option of starting a project with py2 or py3 and you choose py3, and discover X days into the project that you have a broken dependency that wouldn't have been broken in py2, you've just increased the cost and time to deliver the project by an unknown factor . Perhaps for some projects, that factor is small. ...and for some of them, it turns out to be huge. So big you have to roll back to py2, and s…

When you have the option of starting a project with py2 or py3 and you choose py3, and discover X days into the project that you have a broken dependency that wouldn't have been broken in py2, you've just increased the cost and time to deliver the project by an unknown factor.

But you can easily replace py3 in this sentence with any other programming language. Does it still hold true? I think that's worth looking at, as groups have both successfully and unsuccessfully started projects in other languages than the core one they've been using. There are examples here of varying degrees of similarity, why not examine them?

When you have a project that is time/cost critical, that risk is absolutely unacceptable. If you're working on your own projects, in your own time, sure thing. ...but professionally, on project work? No. Never.

Obviously there will better and worse project candidates. High pressure, cannot fail projects are not good candidates. I think any company that consists only of high pressure, cannot fail projects is not very well managed. Hopefully yours is not like that.

Until you get the reverse, where continuing to work in py2 introduces an equivalent risk, because new libraries are 'py3 only', there is no justification whatsoever for using python 3.

Ostensibly, there are reasons why py3 made changes. Those reasons may still apply. Whether you think they are justified, or worth concern, is up to you.

(If you think that's ridiculous... what can I say? Clearly you haven't worked under time/cost pressures where you have to be personally responsible for delivering on time and budget)

Let's see, you make a clearly hyperbolic statement, and when I call it out, you resort to an ad-hominem regarding my credentials. I see where this is going.

I only responded originally because your statement was ridiculous on it's face, and you keep making more of them. You seem to traffic in absolutes, and general absolutes, not just for yourself; "...death knell to using it for anything, EVER", "...but professionally, on project work? No. Never." Here's a hint, all it takes to disprove never is once.

I thought I could pull some interesting information out of you as to why you held such strong convictions regarding py3 (not because I'm an advocate, I don't know/write python), and compare those reasons to how other people and groups justify exploring other languages at work, because it interests me, even if I'm generally of the opinion it's not worthwhile.

Obviously you care a lot about this, at least at the moment (at least I hope that explains why you are throwing around words like "never"). Perhaps in the future when you're less emotionally invested you'll be able to step back and look at the issue again, and maybe you'll see it the same way, maybe not.

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

#115

Post by hyperpape »

reuven wrote: post #81
hyperpape wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll need some killer heurstics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_Problem

Er, I sorta knew that I was describing the halting problem, and was wondering if someone would fail to realize my sarcasm...

Yeah, I see that "should be easy enough" at the end. My bad.

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

#117

Post by Tloewald »

zephjc wrote: post #34
crag wrote: post #25

"Do you think Python 3.x was a mistake?" That's where I stop filling out the survey. And that's the python community biggest problem. Moving forward, everyone needs to pick a version (and I'd pick 3). A new user just sits and spins his head. Even the training materials are all over the place.

I don't think it's a leading question - I think if they get a large enough sample size, it will be a worthwhile survey of the Python community's 2/3 behavior. Ultimately, you did pro-Python 3 supporters a disservice by not speaking up.

I suspect the survey is probably selection biased towards 3 as it is. In any event, whether respondents considered it a mistake or not, it's a mistake.

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

#118

Post by brownbat »

I'm curious what the Python 3 adoption status is inside of Google, which I think of as a place that's relatively pro-Python, very pro-new stuff, but also possessing a lot of institutional inertia and giant amounts of code. Have parts of Google overcome the inertia and switched to 3? Do fights break out in the halls? Is it 2 forever and always?

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

#119

Post by collyw »

ckarmann wrote: post #97
collyw wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its all well saying Django supports Python 3, but when you reply on a dependency, such as MySQL connector (which I assume a LOT of Django users will want to use), then Django effectively doesn't work with Python 3.

I just stumbled on PyMySQL[0], who supports Python 3. Is there any issue with using this library, since it seems an obvious solution to this problem? [0] https://github.com/PyMySQL/PyMySQL/

Fair enough, but it wasn't available a couple of months back when I was trying out MySQL and Python 3. There were a few hacky solutions available.
Post reply on HN