Grumpy: Go running Python • Hacker News Board

Re: Grumpy: Go running Python

#461

Post by cdelsolar » Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 6:56 PM UTC

kj01a wrote: post #342

cdelsolar wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true, but moving our huge codebase to Python 3 is a big undertaking. We're making progress towards it by using Python 3 constructs for new files, etc. For my personal projects I'm already in the process of moving over.

So is it just a time issue, or are there compatibility reasons for why not all of you code is Python 3? I ask because I started to learn to code with Python 2 because that's what was preloaded on my system. Is one over the other a big enough deal at a beginner level that I should switch to 3 now? How much of a learning curve am I in for?

Just a time issue. I don't believe the learning curve is that big, most of it would be in how you deal with strings and the `print` statement, which isn't that heavily used in web apps.

Re: Grumpy: Go running Python

#462

Post by i336_ » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 1:43 AM UTC

trotterdylan wrote: post #98

Twirrim wrote: post #5

This seems like an odd engineering choice. Presumably the effort to create a python->go translator would be non-trivial. Why not just start rewriting components into Go, and migrating them out of Python, leaving python as essentially the presentation layer at most?

It's been said a couple times in this thread already but basically, the YouTube Python codebase is very large and the cost of a rewrite is prohibitive.

Statistics would be very interesting to the "useless internal trivia" types.

Re: Grumpy: Go running Python

#463

Post by lomnakkus » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 12:45 AM UTC

guitarbill wrote: post #332

lomnakkus wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, what? Claiming that your [1] is in any way a specification for the language is utterly absurd. It's far too vague. (Compare to even an IETF RFC, and you'll see what I mean. If you want to compare to a real language spec, compare to ISO C++.)

> to a real language spec, compare to ISO C++. No thanks. Written specs can always have interesting implications or undefined behaviour. Just because it's written in a more verbose language (English) doesn't mean it's less vague. E.g. GGC is the de facto C spec for many. Code/platforms as spec makes more sense and is easier to maintain/update, with quicker iterations of language features (c.f. Ruby/Python to C++).

My issue isn't necessarily with the fact that it's in English. It's that it's hopelessly imprecise English. Maybe you'd have less of an issue with the Java Language Spec? (Which, IIRC, even left out some memory model problems until recently.)