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

Python 3.3: Trust Me, It's Better Than Python 2.7 (2013)

speakerdeck.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: Python 3.3: Trust Me, It's Better Than Python 2.7 (2013)

#31

Post by prostoalex »

username223 wrote: post #18
allochthon wrote: post #4

Interesting read. Note the "Google Confidential and Proprietary" at the bottom of most of the slides. I wonder if the author just forgot to remove the notice when the slides were made public.

The guy probably gave it as a lunch-time talk at Google, and their default slide format adds that footer. Google seems worse than average in terms of compulsive secrecy, but hardly unique IME. Labeling a summary of a public ChangeLog plus a few benchmarks "Confidential and Proprietary" is just what people do these days. But this seems kind of sloppy, especially if he's reciting from a company slide deck (I've seen Go…

Seems a bit sloppy on their end and ripe for social engineering trickery. If an employee is debating publishing/sending something labeled "Confidential and Proprietary", but then sees a dozen of "Confidential and Proprietary" documents in Google-approved public repositories, they might lower their guard on what the words actually mean.

Re: Python 3.3: Trust Me, It's Better Than Python 2.7 (2013)

#32

Post by pyre »

sigzero wrote: post #20
freyrs3 wrote: post #5

Whether it's technically better or not is usually not in question. It's whether it's compellingly better to the point of outweighing the migration cost. For most of the community it still seems the answer is no.

Python 2.7 is a dead end regardless. Python 3 is the way forward.

Just like how Perl 5.x is dead and Perl 6 is the way forward? /s

Re: Python 3.3: Trust Me, It's Better Than Python 2.7 (2013)

#33

Post by ak217 »

Mizza wrote: post #24
ak217 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am, but I've never written one. Maybe it's best to start a discussion on the ML?

That is, in fact, the first step to a PEP! According to this: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/ :) Are you on the ML already?

No, I'm going to go register and join the discussion.

Re: Python 3.3: Trust Me, It's Better Than Python 2.7 (2013)

#34

Post by ak217 »

pyre wrote: post #32
sigzero wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Python 2.7 is a dead end regardless. Python 3 is the way forward.

Just like how Perl 5.x is dead and Perl 6 is the way forward? /s

Except for the part where Python 3 is real, production ready and about to become the default.

Re: Python 3.3: Trust Me, It's Better Than Python 2.7 (2013)

#36

Post by aortega »

ak217 wrote: post #11
Mizza wrote: post #8

Can somebody explain function annotations for me? spam = None bacon = 42 def monty(a:spam, b:bacon) -> "different": pass What's the point of this? It also seems like super ugly syntax to me, not pythonic. It looks like Ruby! Yuck.

See http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/ . Annotations provide a loosely organized way to introduce type checking to your inputs and outputs. They serve as built-in documentation and IDE hinting mechanism, but also provide the ability break early when the function's I/O contract is broken. IMO they are awesome and quite Pythonic.

There are a lot of awesome things that can be added to a language. Python is nice because it's simple and intuitive and you don't really need to read the docs to figure out how to do things and use libraries.

Now it's becoming more like C++, where each hotshot developer want to add his language extension to do some obscure thing nobody really uses except from them and their friends. It will be the demise of Python.

What about this instead: make it faster.

Re: Python 3.3: Trust Me, It's Better Than Python 2.7 (2013)

#37

Post by pfranz »

rdtsc wrote: post #23
mhurron wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> CentOS6 defaults I've always considered it bad to use the RH provided python for development.

> I've always considered it bad to use the RH provided python for development. May I ask why? I see why maybe using your own compiled 2.7 or 3 might be nice, I don't, I just use the one that comes in with CentOS/RHEL 6. * It get regular security updates from upstream * Easy to install, it is part of existing package dependency chain (as opposed to say doing make ; make install from source) * It comes with a default r…

At the facility I work at we're still migrating from Cent5 to Cent6. Cent5 is installed with Python 2.4 (released 2004-11-30, unsupported since 2008-12-19). Thankfully, we're juggling Python 2.5 and 2.6. We rely on a couple pieces of third-party software that include their own Python (2.6 and 2.7).

But even without the third-party software I'd prefer to use a separate install of Python. If there were a few Python scripts there and there, we could probably manage, but managing a large Python codebase would be ridiculous trying to rely on the OS version of Python. Transitions to new OS versions would be way harder, too.

Re: Python 3.3: Trust Me, It's Better Than Python 2.7 (2013)

#38

Post by cfqycwz »

ak217 wrote: post #33
Mizza wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is, in fact, the first step to a PEP! According to this: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/ :) Are you on the ML already?

No, I'm going to go register and join the discussion.

Hey, did this happen? If so, I'd love a link to the discussion .
Post reply on HN