Extend Python 2.7 life till 2020 • Hacker News Board

Re: Extend Python 2.7 life till 2020

#101

Post by andy » Sun, Apr 13, 2014, 5:39 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #85

jimmaswell wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well honestly, python 2* is a lot more convenient to write in a lot of ways, and the benefits of 3 aren't big enough to make up for it for a lot of people/use cases.

> Well honestly, python 2* is a lot more convenient to write in a lot of ways In what way is python 2 more convenient to write? Outside of the rapidly shrinking set of cases where the best approach to a key problem is addressed by a Py 2 only library -- or the case of "I want to deploy on Google App Engine" -- I don't really see how Py 2 is "more convenient".

print x doesn't work, you have to use print(x).

Re: Extend Python 2.7 life till 2020

#102

Post by Udo » Sun, Apr 13, 2014, 5:39 PM UTC

Speaking as a Python outsider, this looks pathological. If backwards compatibility is such a big hindrance in switching from 2 to 3, why not ship a v2 legacy fallback interpreter along with the new stuff? If you wanted to make it fancy, you could even make a 3-to-2 bridge that allows people to run v2 code from v3.

Am I missing something here?

Re: Extend Python 2.7 life till 2020

#103

Post by eliben » Sun, Apr 13, 2014, 5:41 PM UTC

I think many folks are reading too much into this. "Extended lifetime" is bug-fixes. The final planned release is 2.7.9 in 2015 - beyond that there will be source-only releases for major security problems. No new features, no non-critical bug fixes.

So this isn't really making Python 3 any less appealing. But the Python core developers cannot with a calm heart abandon all the users of 2.x, given the state of adoption today.

Re: Extend Python 2.7 life till 2020

#104

Post by berkut » Sun, Apr 13, 2014, 5:41 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #87

KaiserPro wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but PHP5 had compelling reasons for upgrading. py3 has a few tweaks and some annoying syntax changes to make things more "pure"

> py3 has a few tweaks and some annoying syntax changes to make things more "pure" That may have been true of Python 3.0 vs. 2.x, but Python 3 has moved forward quite a bit since 3.0.

I think the point was there was no "OMG we need that, let's upgrade" feature for most people (unicode maybe).

e.g.:

  * Performance
  * Getting rid of the GIL
  * Improve multithreading (somewhat related to above) - multiprocess is still very bad performance-wise

A fair number of the things in 3.x could have been added to the 2.x series...

Re: Extend Python 2.7 life till 2020

#105

Post by Argorak » Sun, Apr 13, 2014, 5:43 PM UTC

ama729 wrote: post #76

crusso wrote: post #45

I just got back into some Python programming after a 2+ year hiatus from the language. I'm stunned that this 2.x vs 3.x debate is still happening and that 99% of all libraries in use * haven't been converted to 3.x. I like the language, but ... damn... If it weren't for the scikit/numpy stuff, I'd stick with Ruby. The Ruby community seems much less fragmented and wants to see the language move forward. It helps a lot…

> The Ruby community seems much less fragmented and wants to see the language move forward. It helps a lot that the 800 pound gorilla, Rails, keeps up with Ruby releases. You kind of answer your question you know, the reason why Python is so fragmented wrt Ruby is precisely because it has a much larger number of uses case: scientific (numpy/scipy/panda), sysadmin, web (django, bottle, ...), games (Ren'Py, ...), etc.…

Thats wrong, Ruby is also used in a lot of devopsy stuff and I've seen quite a few uses of Ruby in other fields. Also, even the web community is rather fragmented now.

Also don't ignore that Ruby has a _huge_ subcommunity in asia that you rarely get any news from, using the language for many other things.

Still, an aggressive push towards the future is part of the Ruby mindset. If your lib doesn't work with Ruby 2.1, it is not considered maintained. That helped _a lot_ during the 1.8->1.9 transition, which was basically Rubys Python 3 moment. The Ruby community managed to cross that bridge.

Re: Extend Python 2.7 life till 2020

#106

Post by andr » Sun, Apr 13, 2014, 5:45 PM UTC

Since there still won't be a Python 2.8, I read this as the mainstream Python not evolving one bit for the next 6 years. For me, this would be grounds for moving to a different language.

Re: Extend Python 2.7 life till 2020

#107

Post by montecarl » Sun, Apr 13, 2014, 5:45 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #89

ma2rten wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I for one like the 2.x style print function. I see why it would be a bad idea to have a separate syntax for print from a purist point of view. But least for smallish scripts which print a lot it give you a better overview because the print line look different than other lines. Sometimes prints can almost be like comments.

> I for one like the 2.x style print function. 2.x didn't have a print function, unless you mean the one from 3 available with a from __future__ import.

In case the grandparent doesn't realize, 2.x has a print statement not function.

Re: Extend Python 2.7 life till 2020

#108

Post by epx » Sun, Apr 13, 2014, 5:47 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #11

This is really disappointing to see - I fear that it will slow adoption of Python 3 even further, when it was just reaching a tipping point[0]. When I first learned Python, I learned Python 3 first because it was newer, and I figured everyone would be using it soon enough. Little did I know that Python 2 would continue to be supported for over ten years after that! Some people make a big deal about figuring out "whic…

Personally I feel more at ease going to Py3 without a knife in my neck due to short EOL

Re: Extend Python 2.7 life till 2020

#109

Post by Goopplesoft » Sun, Apr 13, 2014, 5:48 PM UTC

eliben wrote: post #103

I think many folks are reading too much into this. "Extended lifetime" is bug-fixes. The final planned release is 2.7.9 in 2015 - beyond that there will be source-only releases for major security problems. No new features, no non-critical bug fixes. So this isn't really making Python 3 any less appealing. But the Python core developers cannot with a calm heart abandon all the users of 2.x, given the state of adoption…

Finally, sensible reasoning. The comments in this thread and the unnecessary publicity this is getting is probably the only thing about this that would lead to the conclusion that this is a push back towards 2.7

Re: Extend Python 2.7 life till 2020

#110

Post by Pacabel » Sun, Apr 13, 2014, 5:48 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #56

a1a wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, if you are comfortable with Python 2, it will do the job, and you know it will be supported for a foreseeable future, why bother learning Python 3? I assume there is a good answer for switching to Python 3, but I honestly don't know (haven't bothered to do any research though). Harshly put: I care about getting my python script working as soon as possible and for a foreseeable future - I couldn't c…

Well, the one big reason was that you were going to lose support for Python 2. Guido just took that reason away and now tens of thousands of new Python apps are going to be written in Python 2 because they've got another 6 years to worry about it. Guido just created a bigger problem. No good deed goes unpunished.

Where exactly do you get this "tens of thousands" number from?