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

Python 2.8?

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 74 posts

Re: Python 2.8?

#21

Post by tyfon »

Cyph0n wrote: post #18
ram_rar wrote: post #13

I am afraid that, the python community has messed up 2.x => 3.X transition. Until 3.3, there seemed no incentive to port your codebase to Python 3.X. With golang getting a lot of traction and compiler tools like grumpy (python -> Go), I would rather invest time to transition into golang as apposed to transition to 3.X.

Transitioning from Python to Go isn't as easy as you make it out to be. Good luck finding solid alternatives to the likes of Numpy, scikit-learn, Pandas, SQLAlchemy, BeautifulSoup, Flask etc. Oh, and not to mention the community surrounding these and other popular Python libraries.

All of them work in python 3.x too. Well. I'm not sure about flask, it's not one i use personally.

Re: Python 2.8?

#22

Post by Tenobrus »

unixhero wrote: post #16
didibus wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's right though. Backporting features will be hard, and it looks like the wrong move. If you wanted to fork just fork, and evolve python 2.7 on its own. Why try to create an inferior python 3? I could see security fix releases be useful. Giving people more time to transition is going to benefit some projects. But in terms of feature, it does sound toyish. Appart from that, it actually doesn't look like there's any…

The problem is some of the massive python modules that cannot be ported from 2.7 to 3 .x

Sure there are some, but several lists (for example, http://py3readiness.org) show that over 95% of very popular packages support Python 3, and some only support Python 3. At this point while you might need 2 for some very specific purposes, 3 has the majority of important packages and new development.

Re: Python 2.8?

#23

Post by throwaway91111 »

otabdeveloper wrote: post #9
copx wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The 2.X => 3.X transition really appears to have been bungled here, which is a shame. Obviously, the question is what went wrong. Personally I think the dev team gave users too much time to switch. The Python devs should have only given users one or two years to upgrade. Making it clear that all support for Python 2 would end after that period. Another mistake was that when originally released Python 3 did not offer…

No, the problem is that Python 3 sucked, and still sucks. Twisting your user's arms even more painfully won't solve the problem, it will just accelerate users switching away to other languages or forks.

How does python 3 suck? It seems quite pleasant to use for me, and I much prefer the clean bytes/str separation.

Re: Python 2.8?

#24

Post by notamy »

tyfon wrote: post #21
Cyph0n wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transitioning from Python to Go isn't as easy as you make it out to be. Good luck finding solid alternatives to the likes of Numpy, scikit-learn, Pandas, SQLAlchemy, BeautifulSoup, Flask etc. Oh, and not to mention the community surrounding these and other popular Python libraries.

All of them work in python 3.x too. Well. I'm not sure about flask, it's not one i use personally.

I've been using flask with python 3.6; it seems to be working fine.

Re: Python 2.8?

#25

Post by Cyph0n »

tyfon wrote: post #21
Cyph0n wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transitioning from Python to Go isn't as easy as you make it out to be. Good luck finding solid alternatives to the likes of Numpy, scikit-learn, Pandas, SQLAlchemy, BeautifulSoup, Flask etc. Oh, and not to mention the community surrounding these and other popular Python libraries.

All of them work in python 3.x too. Well. I'm not sure about flask, it's not one i use personally.

I know, but I was addressing the point about migrating to Go.

Re: Python 2.8?

#26

Post by greglindahl »

douche wrote: post #17
douche wrote: post #3

The 2.X => 3.X transition really appears to have been bungled here, which is a shame. I really liked Python before I got deeply into the .Net world, but it has become less than enticing with this fragmentation. Meanwhile other languages seem to have taken up the vanguard position, which leaves Python in kind of an awkward position, between the new hotness and the tried-and-true enterprisey ecosystems

I'm curious why this is so downvoted...

Every single HN thread about Python includes a pointless and repetitive discussion of Python 3 being bungled. I didn't downvote you, but I can see why many others might.

Re: Python 2.8?

#27

Post by chx »

unixhero wrote: post #16
didibus wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's right though. Backporting features will be hard, and it looks like the wrong move. If you wanted to fork just fork, and evolve python 2.7 on its own. Why try to create an inferior python 3? I could see security fix releases be useful. Giving people more time to transition is going to benefit some projects. But in terms of feature, it does sound toyish. Appart from that, it actually doesn't look like there's any…

The problem is some of the massive python modules that cannot be ported from 2.7 to 3 .x

As I mentioned elsewhere, my go-to example was PCSC-Lite support. I thought it so old and obscure it will never happen. But look, https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pyscard/1.9.4

Re: Python 2.8?

#28

Post by Orangeair »

didibus wrote: post #14
daveguy wrote: post #7

I'm glad Guido considers this a toy. Anyone interested in helping out the github repo is here: https://github.com/naftaliharris/placeholder

He's right though. Backporting features will be hard, and it looks like the wrong move. If you wanted to fork just fork, and evolve python 2.7 on its own. Why try to create an inferior python 3? I could see security fix releases be useful. Giving people more time to transition is going to benefit some projects. But in terms of feature, it does sound toyish. Appart from that, it actually doesn't look like there's any…

I agree. What exactly is the point of backporting features, when the main reason people give for wanting to use Python 2 is for legacy applications? What 8-year-old codebase is going to be updated to use `async`? And if you're starting a new project, why not write it in Python 3, which has first-party support?

Re: Python 2.8?

#29

Post by ubernostrum »

ram_rar wrote: post #13

I am afraid that, the python community has messed up 2.x => 3.X transition. Until 3.3, there seemed no incentive to port your codebase to Python 3.X. With golang getting a lot of traction and compiler tools like grumpy (python -> Go), I would rather invest time to transition into golang as apposed to transition to 3.X.

I am afraid that, the python community has messed up 2.x => 3.X transition. Until 3.3, there seemed no incentive to port your codebase to Python 3.X.

Just to bring up a small counterpoint: I don't think anyone really expected the early 3.x releases to be used in production. They were, as I recall, intended primarily as proof-of-concept releases to let people start looking at what porting would involve, and to get feedback and make improvements in the 3.x series to make porting easier and production deployments nicer.

Re: Python 2.8?

#30

Post by sfilargi »

scrollaway wrote: post #10
frunzales wrote: post #4

The amount of trolling in that thread is incredible. I don't understand why an average Joe needs to contradict Guido on trademark matters.

Because some people are hateful by nature and see Guido as Satan incarnate for "hating Python 2". And no, I'm not exaggerating, you just need to look at the comments: https://github.com/naftaliharris/placeholder/issues/47#issue... I read through that thread the other day and it breaks my heart to know that there are people who think like that. Honestly. On various occasions I've reasoned (and not reasoned) with the m…

They should name it Monty. A little humor will help with the tension.
Post reply on HN