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

Why I'm Making Python 2.8

naftaliharris.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 392 posts

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#141

Post by throwanem »

underyx wrote: post #54
wfunction wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your eyes is anything that isn't getting more and more features added every few months necessarily obsolete? Can't something just become mature and fulfill its goals at some point? Do you consider T-shirts to be obsolete too? If they kept adding more and more attachments ("features") to your clothes every few months to prevent them from becoming "obsolete" you'd be walking around in really heavy clothing...

Tape recorders are not still being made; verdict: obsolete T-shirts are still being made; verdict: not obsolete Python 2 is not still being made; verdict: obsolete

Submitted for your approval: https://vimeo.com/15365268

(No, it's not related to the matter at hand, and certainly should not be taken as an attempt to further complicate this not especially fruitful wrangle. But it's a goodie and you reminded me of it so I figured I'd share.)

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#143

Post by coldtea »

yoz-y wrote: post #20

I make software that people can write plugins for in Python. After months, years of struggle we finally dropped support for Python 2 because our small team could not bear the overhead of maintaining two bindings. We work a lot with researchers in signal processing domain and we have hard time as it is to get people to use Python 3. Please, do not put obsolete software on life support.

>Please, do not put obsolete software on life support.

Regarding adoption, it's 3.0 that's obsolete, and 2.7 that's vibrant. Even for new code (they conveniently only count totally greenfield projects, but most new code is written in fact to work with established 2.x codebases under Python 2, not as a totally greenfield project).

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#144

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

dom0 wrote: post #127
masklinn wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is incorrect. […] The text model of rust is much closer to Python 2 than 3 in many ways. Rust's text model strictly separates proper strings and bytestrings, defaults to proper strings and requires that strings be properly formed (so much so that it has additional completely separated platform-dependent types for dealing with OS-originated "stuff"). The one "difference" (which is more in the realm of implement…

> Only for the specific case of input bytes already in the language's internal encoding (which granted will be common as most inputs would be ascii or utf-8) and with the same ownership constraints as the input, and that's mostly enabled by Rust's ownership model. Except of course on operating systems where text I/O is done entirely in UTF-16. Say, Windows. Since Python strings have no fixed encoding, but choose "the…

> Since Python strings have no fixed encoding, but choose "the most efficient one" (heuristically) when decoding, they can cope better than a fixed UTF-8 encoding in these cases.

That is wrong. Python can never pick the most efficient encoding unless you decode from latin1.

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#145

Post by coldtea »

js8 wrote: post #37
wfunction wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes something obsolete in your eyes then? Just because some people want A to replace B, that makes B obsolete? For reference, Oxford dictionaries define (..."define"? are multiple dictionaries involved here?) "obsolete" as: 1. no longer produced or used; out of date. Clearly Python 2.7 is in widespread use, and version 2.7.12 came out just a few months ago, so it's neither "no longer produced" nor "no longer u…

Python 2.7 is outdated by Python 3.5. The fact that there is a bugfix release doesn't change that. I mean look at other things. You can still program in C 89 or FORTRAN 77 or COBOL 74 (and no doubt there is somebody still supporting compilers and runtimes for those), but they are all obsolete standards. Addendum: I think for standards like programming language semantics (which in case of Python is directly embodied i…

>Python 2.7 is outdated by Python 3.5. The fact that there is a bugfix release doesn't change that.

That's just what the lead project team declared. Not what the user base asked for or wants.

>You can still program in C 89 or FORTRAN 77 or COBOL 74 (and no doubt there is somebody still supporting compilers and runtimes for those), but they are all obsolete standards.

That's because people stopped using them organically. That's not the case with Python 2 -- Python 3 was declared "the new hotness" with a decree from above.

It's like as if the W3C comes out with some incompatible HTML NG on their own and says that HMTL 5 is "end of line", giving billions of webpages the middle finger.

Even worse, it's also as if HTML NG only had some marginal improvements over HTML 5, and was otherwise the same.

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#147

Post by smoyer »

lloeki wrote: post #33

> And the majority of Python code written does not run under any of the 3.x interpreters. This makes it harder for its users to be productive. What a load of bollocks. For new projects this only matters if libraries aren't ported, which they are for the most part. For old projects, either you're in a situation where you can spend time porting your code to Python 3, or you don't; but as TFA mentioned pep-404, the writ…

I came here to say exactly this ... you're better off upgrading your systems as you can. There's one point missing above - do you really want to use a version of Python that's maintained by one person and of unknown quality? You're better off staying on 2.7 if you can't afford to upgrade.

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#148

Post by coldtea »

underyx wrote: post #54
wfunction wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your eyes is anything that isn't getting more and more features added every few months necessarily obsolete? Can't something just become mature and fulfill its goals at some point? Do you consider T-shirts to be obsolete too? If they kept adding more and more attachments ("features") to your clothes every few months to prevent them from becoming "obsolete" you'd be walking around in really heavy clothing...

Tape recorders are not still being made; verdict: obsolete T-shirts are still being made; verdict: not obsolete Python 2 is not still being made; verdict: obsolete

That's not for the manufacturer to decide. Python 3 is like Coca Cola declaring that the New Coke is all people should drink, and stopping production of classic coke.

Python 2 is still being "worn" by millions of programmers, and is what runs in the biggest installations. This includes new code written for those installations, that it's written to run in the same 2.x environment.

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#149

Post by coldtea »

actsasbuffoon wrote: post #122
wfunction wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Python 2 is still being "made" in the sense you consider T-shirts are still being made, though. it's still provided for download, and people are downloading it and using it, and even using it for new things. Heck, it's even getting bugfixes which is a plus. It's just not getting features added, and it happens to be software so reproducing it happens to be trivial compared to "hardware" like clothing. So, do your comp…

You can still download the operating system for an Amiga, yet the Amiga is obsolete (despite diehards still using 31 year old computers). Python 2 is no longer being actively developed. It receives bug fixes, and even those are scheduled to stop before too much longer. The fact that people are using Python 2 means that it's not dead, but that doesn't mean it isn't obsolete. Think of it this way. You need a library to…

>You can still download the operating system for an Amiga, yet the Amiga is obsolete (despite diehards still using 31 year old computers)

That's because nobody (very few) use the Amiga.

On the contrary, very many, much more than use Python 3, use Python 2.

So, it's not like the Amiga at all.

It's more like as if e.g. Apple suddenly decided to stop producing laptops because "iPads are the future", and forcing these down everybody's throat.

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#150

Post by coldtea »

oblio wrote: post #109
wfunction wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your eyes is anything that isn't getting more and more features added every few months necessarily obsolete? Can't something just become mature and fulfill its goals at some point? Do you consider T-shirts to be obsolete too? If they kept adding more and more attachments ("features") to your clothes every few months to prevent them from becoming "obsolete" you'd be walking around in really heavy clothing...

Well, in some respects T-shirts made in the 80s are obsolete, even though functionally they still work. Fashion changes, materials change, cuts change, etc. You could still wear them today but you'd be working against today's "protocols".

Actually 80s t-shirts are very much in fashion.
Post reply on HN