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

Python 3.0 Released

python.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: Python 3.0 Released

#31

Post by cpr »

lunchbox wrote: post #23

The download link for Python 3.0 is now featured prominently on the front page, above Python 2.6. I think this is a bad move, since many Python newbies will probably download Python 3.0 instead of 2.6, and then get frustrated when none of their 3rd-party packages work. python.org should keep Python 3.0 more hidden away for the time being to give time for the greater Python development community to migrate to 3.0.

Babo's right--remember that Python is "batteries included," which means all the standard libraries (which cover a huge range of uses) are already 3.0-ized.

Re: Python 3.0 Released

#32

Post by cpr »

rbanffy wrote: post #20

I loved it, but I still want better threading and multi-core support in CPython... Most desktops now have two cores and it doesn't seem likely that number will fall anytime soon...

Guido (BDFL) has said that the GIL will not be removed in 3.x, so we'll have to look for other implementations to tackle this problem head-on. As someone else remarked, there's a new multiprocessing library that attempts to make this more palatable.

Re: Python 3.0 Released

#33

Post by nihilocrat »

lacker wrote: post #13
joestrickler wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, no. I do most of my work in Python and would love to see quick Py3k adoption. But 2.3 was released 29-Jul-2003 and is still the baseline for portable code. Pythonistas are just as much a victim to the forces against migration as PHP and "other language" coders. Just for kicks, try getting a stable webapp stack running on 2.6. I'm still not near ready to put that into production (and I run tiny, tiny websites).

Google App Engine uses 2.5.2 and that seems stable. http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/whatisgoogleappengine....

I think he is using the "enterprise" definition of "stable", which means "really, really old for no really good reason".

2.5.2 is "latest stable" for me, I've had no problems with it.

Re: Python 3.0 Released

#35

Post by dnaquin »

bdr wrote: post #14

I'm ambivalent about changing so many functions to return iterators. It's cleaner for experienced coders, but harder to understand for beginners.

Most of those changes get masked behind loops that I don't think either is very different for understanding.

I think the plusses outweigh the edge cases.

Re: Python 3.0 Released

#36

Post by lunchbox »

cpr wrote: post #31
lunchbox wrote: post #23

The download link for Python 3.0 is now featured prominently on the front page, above Python 2.6. I think this is a bad move, since many Python newbies will probably download Python 3.0 instead of 2.6, and then get frustrated when none of their 3rd-party packages work. python.org should keep Python 3.0 more hidden away for the time being to give time for the greater Python development community to migrate to 3.0.

Babo's right--remember that Python is "batteries included," which means all the standard libraries (which cover a huge range of uses) are already 3.0-ized.

Good point. But http://www.python.org/download/ says in its discussion of 2.6/3.0: "if you don't know which version to use, start with Python 2.6." To me, this advice is inconsistent with the layout on the front page, since most people who don't know what to use will click on the 3.0 link.

Re: Python 3.0 Released

#37

Post by wesm »

juanpablo wrote: post #10
illumen wrote: post #5

Remember python 3.0 is supposed to be an intermediate for migration release... not for production use. That's what 3.1 is for. It's going to take ages for modules to get converted over... but most projects have been preparing for it for a while. However hopefully the migration scripts will get better over the 3.0 - 3.1 timeline. For now I'm sticking with python 2.5 - since it's the best one considering it's far bette…

I think that's python2.6

NumPy and other libraries aren't working 100% (have some breaking tests) on Python 2.6 yet due to some C API changes

Re: Python 3.0 Released

#38

Post by mechanical_fish »

EliAndrewC wrote: post #30
FiReaNG3L wrote: post #9

Guess it's a good time to learn Python!

I agree that it's a good time to learn Python... because it's always a good time to learn Python. However, be aware that no one in the Python community expects 3.x to be used widely for a few years. Even for new projects, if you want to depend on an existing 3rd party library that hasn't yet been ported, you'll probably have to stick with 2.6. To accommodate this, they allow you to import almost all of the 3.0 featur…

from __future__ import XXX

"I'll borrow features from myself in the future!"

[time passes]

"Hey! That guy from the past just copied all my features!"

Re: Python 3.0 Released

#39

Post by rbanffy »

marcher wrote: post #26
rbanffy wrote: post #20

I loved it, but I still want better threading and multi-core support in CPython... Most desktops now have two cores and it doesn't seem likely that number will fall anytime soon...

Python 2.6 and 3.0 ship with a new library called multiprocessing which provides mechanisms for process control and intercommunication, which conveniently sidesteps the GIL limitation that prevents multiple core usage. The library is loosely based around the existing threading API, and allows for seamless transfer of Python objects between processes (unlike other forms of IPC).

I know. The library is available to 2.5 as "processing", but starting OS processes when all you wanted were threads is somewhat ugly. I agree it's not possible to do it properly with the GIL in place and attempts to remove it did have less than amazing results on single-thread applications.

That's annoying... Even more annoying when I think it's easier to do in Java ;-)

Re: Python 3.0 Released

#40

Post by breck »

petercooper wrote: post #3

So much cleaner and more consistent. Classic classes are gone for good! Unlike with other languages (which I won't name for fear of offense!) I think Pythonistas will actually migrate to this much improved Python (well, forgetting the 10% performance hit) especially as such focus has been put into making tools to make it easier, unlike with PHP 4->5 (oops..!)

True, migrating to PHP4 to 5 wasn't pretty, but 5 was an order of magnitude improvement over 4 and so worth the cost. Not sure if the same can be said for this new Py release. I'm still doing everything in 2.6(which was a recent move from 2.5). Too many libraries that aren't out for 3 yet.
Post reply on HN