7 ms·

I'll go one step further and advocate for the PyPy developers please not to port to Python 3. Here we have a project which has clearly become the go to for 2.x

I'll go one step further and advocate for the PyPy developers please not to port to Python 3. Here we have a project which has clearly become the go to for 2.x people who would like Python to move forward in a way which makes a real difference to them, and there is an ideal opportunity here for this to become the de-facto continuation of the 2.x line, with a real future, as an alternative to the 3.x forcefeed.

BuckRogers 11y ago
Not a bad idea. It would certainly elevate the project to unforeseen heights and probably turn them (http://www.baroquesoftware.com/ http://www.baroquesoftware.com/) into very wealthy men while offering a very desired and needed service for many businesses. While harming no one who didn't already harm themselves. More relevant than CPython3 overnight, which is of significant stature. If prestige and money are desirable things, absolute no brainer if they have a business bone in their bodies. It would also secure the future of the stack for everyone concerned with Python3 threatening to cut off Python2. It could also enable a bigger return on those of us who have invested financially into PyPy development. It would certainly snowball even more financial investment. It would then be the CPython3 project's move. Abandon and integrate all the non-breaking Python3 features into 2.7? Or just move forward with a significantly weaker and less relevant project, working against their past selves? I don't think most would really care and it's best they just move away with their own project. Could be on the way judging from the favorable naming convention, PyPy4? Has a nice ring to it. "the Python2.7 compatible release — PyPy 4.0.0 — (`what's new in PyPy4.0.0?`_)" "the Python3.2.5 compatible release — PyPy3 2.4.0 — (what's new in PyPy3 2.4.0?)." The PyPy gods are in an enviable position for sure. If they seize the opportunity it's the chance of a lifetime.
- vegabook 11y ago
  Couldn't agree more. This could well be Python 4! (though my original comment is going lighter grey by the minute so clearly the Python 3 thought police are out in force this afternoon/evening).
  - BuckRogers 11y ago
    I think your ideas are relatively safe here, just don't go to reddit expecting your freethinking Python2 heathenism to be accepted. ;) I'm afraid some of those folks are making there way over here though. I know you're not suggesting use the name Python4 but it would be interesting to know the possible trademark issues. I'd expect Guido and the core devs to get nasty if they called it Python4. It would probably be too close to war. Announcing PyPy an official fork of Python probably already has them hesitating from backlash. In the end, the gain is bigger than any vocal Python3 folks could muster. I think both sides want PyPy pretty bad but currently in reality it's a 2.x advantage. They already have a great name, the implementation and language could be PyPy(4+).
- orf 11y ago
  Yeah, the best thing they could possibly do right now is to fork Python and make yet another flavour. We already have this 2/3 mess so let's throw another version into the mix just as Py2 seems to be dying. I don't get this hate for Python 3. Yeah some things changed, yeah having a big codebase in Py2 sucks if you don't have the time/resources to switch, but starting new projects in Py3 by default is awesome. Asyncio and async/await are fantastic and worth the switch alone.
  - vegabook 11y ago
    Yes, I agree that Python 3 is not that bad to start a new project in. But that's not the problem. The problem is that many of us have a huge investment in Python, and the project is meandering around, borderline-insulting its historic users who still like 2.7, while simultaneously failing to deliver on REAL needs such as performance and GPU support. Instead we get these little tweaks here and there, downright embarrassing PEPs like type annotations, and all this frankly distasteful pressure to move to 3.x using threats of the end-of-the-line for 2.... Basically 3 gives us lots of headaches, very marginal improvements, an ivory-tower sense of "we know best" (message to Guido - no you don't), and a real concern that the powers that be have no clue what's going on at Golang Towers, Fort Javascript, not to mention Clojure, Julia, or even Elixir.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  They are already willing to take money to work on Python 2.7 stuff, how does refusing to take money for Python 3 stuff lead to them making more money?
  - vegabook 11y ago
    It would show leadership. Leadership which is demonstrably lacking in the 3.x line. Thus they could take a (risky but calculated) bet to take over Python completely.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
rudolf0 11y ago
What would be the point of this? Are you suggesting PyPy forks the Python language itself? PyPy hasn't implemented new core language features, and I don't see them doing so in the future. Python 3 is actively developed, fixing many warts in the language and adding great new features. As annoying as the transition to Python 3 is, it's the future of the language. I was actually one of the curmudgeons who stuck with 2.7 and grumbled about not wanting to switch until a few months ago. I've accepted that I need to, at the very least, start new projects in Python 3 wherever possible. The vast majority of popular third party libraries have been ported over at this point. Python 2's death is inevitable, even if it will take many more years.
- vegabook 11y ago
  That is exactly what I am suggesting. There is no urgent necessity to add any new core language features to 2.7. That's what you 3 guys just don't get. I certainly don't need asyncio as much as I need vectorised numerics, and if I needed asyncio, I had at least 5 libraries already. I most definitely will never be type annotating Python. Cloud cuckoo land. Let me warn you. If you persist with your propaganda on Python3, then GOLANG will be the future of Python. Does that register with you guys? Nobody who uses Python 2.7 all day every day thinks it has any of these imaginary "worts" you 3.x guys like to pitch incessantly.
  - orf 11y ago
    > Nobody who uses Python 2.7 all day every day thinks it has any of these imaginary "worts" you 3.x guys like to pitch all day. Maybe people who use 2.7 all day don't see the warts as much as someone who has been rid of them?
    - vegabook 11y ago
      It took me a week struggling with Asyncio to wrap my mind around it. It took me 12 hours to do the same with Golang channels. I got 20 000 inserts per second from a 360 gig JSON file into Cassandra using 30 goroutines. I was maxing out at 900 in Python 3. Golang was parsing the JSON at a frankly RIDICULOUS 2 million lines per second. Python 3 was around 50 thousand. Python 3 is adding features that other languages do better. Python smashes other languages in numerics, and approachability. Nobody needs 3 for numerics, and 3 goes backwards in approachability. If you're using 3 for its back-end tools, you're using the wrong tool. I would never move to golang for numerics because pandas/numpy/scipy/theano stomp all over it, but its only for numerics that I'll stay with Python. Everything else I'm moving away (mostly Golang, looking at Elixir) and talking to the numeric stack over zeroMQ/msgpack.

BuckRogers 11y ago

Not a bad idea. It would certainly elevate the project to unforeseen heights and probably turn them (http://www.baroquesoftware.com/ http://www.baroquesoftware.com/) into very wealthy men while offering a very desired and needed service for many businesses. While harming no one who didn't already harm themselves. More relevant than CPython3 overnight, which is of significant stature. If prestige and money are desirable things, absolute no brainer if they have a business bone in their bodies. It would also secure the future of the stack for everyone concerned with Python3 threatening to cut off Python2. It could also enable a bigger return on those of us who have invested financially into PyPy development. It would certainly snowball even more financial investment. It would then be the CPython3 project's move. Abandon and integrate all the non-breaking Python3 features into 2.7? Or just move forward with a significantly weaker and less relevant project, working against their past selves? I don't think most would really care and it's best they just move away with their own project. Could be on the way judging from the favorable naming convention, PyPy4? Has a nice ring to it. "the Python2.7 compatible release — PyPy 4.0.0 — (`what's new in PyPy4.0.0?`_)" "the Python3.2.5 compatible release — PyPy3 2.4.0 — (what's new in PyPy3 2.4.0?)." The PyPy gods are in an enviable position for sure. If they seize the opportunity it's the chance of a lifetime.

vegabook 11y ago
Couldn't agree more. This could well be Python 4! (though my original comment is going lighter grey by the minute so clearly the Python 3 thought police are out in force this afternoon/evening).
- BuckRogers 11y ago
  I think your ideas are relatively safe here, just don't go to reddit expecting your freethinking Python2 heathenism to be accepted. ;) I'm afraid some of those folks are making there way over here though. I know you're not suggesting use the name Python4 but it would be interesting to know the possible trademark issues. I'd expect Guido and the core devs to get nasty if they called it Python4. It would probably be too close to war. Announcing PyPy an official fork of Python probably already has them hesitating from backlash. In the end, the gain is bigger than any vocal Python3 folks could muster. I think both sides want PyPy pretty bad but currently in reality it's a 2.x advantage. They already have a great name, the implementation and language could be PyPy(4+).
orf 11y ago
Yeah, the best thing they could possibly do right now is to fork Python and make yet another flavour. We already have this 2/3 mess so let's throw another version into the mix just as Py2 seems to be dying. I don't get this hate for Python 3. Yeah some things changed, yeah having a big codebase in Py2 sucks if you don't have the time/resources to switch, but starting new projects in Py3 by default is awesome. Asyncio and async/await are fantastic and worth the switch alone.
- vegabook 11y ago
  Yes, I agree that Python 3 is not that bad to start a new project in. But that's not the problem. The problem is that many of us have a huge investment in Python, and the project is meandering around, borderline-insulting its historic users who still like 2.7, while simultaneously failing to deliver on REAL needs such as performance and GPU support. Instead we get these little tweaks here and there, downright embarrassing PEPs like type annotations, and all this frankly distasteful pressure to move to 3.x using threats of the end-of-the-line for 2.... Basically 3 gives us lots of headaches, very marginal improvements, an ivory-tower sense of "we know best" (message to Guido - no you don't), and a real concern that the powers that be have no clue what's going on at Golang Towers, Fort Javascript, not to mention Clojure, Julia, or even Elixir.
maxerickson 11y ago
They are already willing to take money to work on Python 2.7 stuff, how does refusing to take money for Python 3 stuff lead to them making more money?
- vegabook 11y ago
  It would show leadership. Leadership which is demonstrably lacking in the 3.x line. Thus they could take a (risky but calculated) bet to take over Python completely.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

rudolf0 11y ago

What would be the point of this? Are you suggesting PyPy forks the Python language itself? PyPy hasn't implemented new core language features, and I don't see them doing so in the future. Python 3 is actively developed, fixing many warts in the language and adding great new features. As annoying as the transition to Python 3 is, it's the future of the language. I was actually one of the curmudgeons who stuck with 2.7 and grumbled about not wanting to switch until a few months ago. I've accepted that I need to, at the very least, start new projects in Python 3 wherever possible. The vast majority of popular third party libraries have been ported over at this point. Python 2's death is inevitable, even if it will take many more years.

vegabook 11y ago
That is exactly what I am suggesting. There is no urgent necessity to add any new core language features to 2.7. That's what you 3 guys just don't get. I certainly don't need asyncio as much as I need vectorised numerics, and if I needed asyncio, I had at least 5 libraries already. I most definitely will never be type annotating Python. Cloud cuckoo land. Let me warn you. If you persist with your propaganda on Python3, then GOLANG will be the future of Python. Does that register with you guys? Nobody who uses Python 2.7 all day every day thinks it has any of these imaginary "worts" you 3.x guys like to pitch incessantly.
- orf 11y ago
  > Nobody who uses Python 2.7 all day every day thinks it has any of these imaginary "worts" you 3.x guys like to pitch all day. Maybe people who use 2.7 all day don't see the warts as much as someone who has been rid of them?
  - vegabook 11y ago
    It took me a week struggling with Asyncio to wrap my mind around it. It took me 12 hours to do the same with Golang channels. I got 20 000 inserts per second from a 360 gig JSON file into Cassandra using 30 goroutines. I was maxing out at 900 in Python 3. Golang was parsing the JSON at a frankly RIDICULOUS 2 million lines per second. Python 3 was around 50 thousand. Python 3 is adding features that other languages do better. Python smashes other languages in numerics, and approachability. Nobody needs 3 for numerics, and 3 goes backwards in approachability. If you're using 3 for its back-end tools, you're using the wrong tool. I would never move to golang for numerics because pandas/numpy/scipy/theano stomp all over it, but its only for numerics that I'll stay with Python. Everything else I'm moving away (mostly Golang, looking at Elixir) and talking to the numeric stack over zeroMQ/msgpack.