Another alternative to data classes is types.SimpleNamespace, available since Python 3.3:
https://docs.python.org/3/library/types.html#types.SimpleNam...
Guide to Data Classes in Python 3.7
41–48 of 48 posts
Re: Guide to Data Classes in Python 3.7
#42I haven't watched it yet but I saw that Raymond Hettinger presented on data classes at PyCon last week [0]. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-TwcmT6Rcw
Here are the slides for that presentation:
Re: Guide to Data Classes in Python 3.7
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same can be said thousands of 16 bit applications that are no longer supported on 64-bit architecture. Python 2.7 isn't being deleted from the face of the Earth. You're just going to have to pay people to maintain your legacy codebase because after 10 years of knowing it will become obsolete you stuck with it.
> The same can be said thousands of 16 bit applications that are no longer supported on 64-bit architecture. And some of those are a big loss as well. But most of them are obsolete and deprecated (because e.g. Office suites, OSes and gaming moved on) in a way that Python 2.x programs used in businesses are not.
>But most of them are obsolete and deprecated (because e.g. Office suites, OSes and gaming moved on) in a way that Python 2.x programs used in businesses are not.
Businesses that fail to adapt to changing markets/technology have nobody to blame but themselves when they've had 10 years to adapt or die. I struggle to find any sympathy for them outside of employees ringing the death bell who were ignored. Also, just to reiterate, 2.7 won't be going anywhere - businesses will need to accept it will cost them more to stick with it. That's the price paid for holding onto technical debt.
Re: Guide to Data Classes in Python 3.7
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The same can be said thousands of 16 bit applications that are no longer supported on 64-bit architecture. And some of those are a big loss as well. But most of them are obsolete and deprecated (because e.g. Office suites, OSes and gaming moved on) in a way that Python 2.x programs used in businesses are not.
>But most of them are obsolete and deprecated (because e.g. Office suites, OSes and gaming moved on) in a way that Python 2.x programs used in businesses are not. Businesses that fail to adapt to changing markets/technology have nobody to blame but themselves when they've had 10 years to adapt or die. I struggle to find any sympathy for them outside of employees ringing the death bell who were ignored. Also, just to…
>Businesses that fail to adapt to changing markets/technology have nobody to blame but themselves when they've had 10 years to adapt or die.
What "die"? Some of the companies using Cobol or other such older technologies (e.g. Java 1.4) are among the most valuable on earth.
And why should they adapt perfectly fine working programs? Just for the sake of it, or because devs like to rewrite stuff?
Re: Guide to Data Classes in Python 3.7
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Forever? You can have support forever. You just can't have it __for free__ forever. There are companies out there that will happily sell you the service. You already get an amazing tech for free, and support of 2 decades in you take all the 2.X branch in consideration (e.g: 4 times the ubuntu LTS). You complaining at this point is just insulting the community. I find it infuriating. When the JS or Ruby community br…
> In 2020, I'll triple my price for any work on 2.7. I'm done being fair to people with such ingratitude. This doesn't make any sense. You're not running a charity. If you can get customers with the tripled price, then do triple it. If you can get customers with a 100x price, you'd be a fool not to 100x your price. If, on the other hand, you can't get customers for triple the price, then tripling it will just make pe…
> This doesn't make any sense. You're not running a charity. If you can get customers with the tripled price, then do triple it. If you can get customers with a 100x price, you'd be a fool not to 100x your price
You say that because you see business as only a gateway to make money. But if you work in the libre community, you'll see that ethics and promotion of the libre is a very important part of it. It's also why FOSS people make less money.
Re: Guide to Data Classes in Python 3.7
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In 2020, I'll triple my price for any work on 2.7. I'm done being fair to people with such ingratitude. This doesn't make any sense. You're not running a charity. If you can get customers with the tripled price, then do triple it. If you can get customers with a 100x price, you'd be a fool not to 100x your price. If, on the other hand, you can't get customers for triple the price, then tripling it will just make pe…
> This doesn't make any sense. You're not running a charity. If you can get customers with the tripled price, then do triple it. If you can get customers with a 100x price, you'd be a fool not to 100x your price You say that because you see business as only a gateway to make money. But if you work in the libre community, you'll see that ethics and promotion of the libre is a very important part of it. It's also why F…
>But if you work in the libre community, you'll see that ethics and promotion of the libre is a very important part of it
For how many people? Most major FOSS people I know work in large companies from Red Hat to IBM and Joyent. Heck, speaking of Python, Guido worked for Google and Dropbox.
And most of the others are volunteers.
Besides, I wouldn't call "tripling the price" when you don't like the client using an older version exactly "ethical".
Have you talked to the client? Do you know their costs and externalities for a 2.7 -> 3 rewrite of their existing (and working code)? It's not like they are capricious and want to use 2.7 out of malice.
Re: Guide to Data Classes in Python 3.7
#47This marks the beginning of the end for python as a dynamic language.
Re: Guide to Data Classes in Python 3.7
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But most of them are obsolete and deprecated (because e.g. Office suites, OSes and gaming moved on) in a way that Python 2.x programs used in businesses are not. Businesses that fail to adapt to changing markets/technology have nobody to blame but themselves when they've had 10 years to adapt or die. I struggle to find any sympathy for them outside of employees ringing the death bell who were ignored. Also, just to…
> Businesses that fail to adapt to changing markets/technology have nobody to blame but themselves when they've had 10 years to adapt or die. What "die"? Some of the companies using Cobol or other such older technologies (e.g. Java 1.4) are among the most valuable on earth. And why should they adapt perfectly fine working programs? Just for the sake of it, or because devs like to rewrite stuff?
>Some of the companies using Cobol or other such older technologies (e.g. Java 1.4) are among the most valuable on earth.
And they pay consultants and contractors in order to continue to do so. I'm not sure I'm seeing where the problem is? Want to stick with Python 2.7? Hire specialists. Problem solved. You just no longer get free labor from the maintainers of the language.