3 ms·

No, I don't have any significant Python2 codebase. I'm making my own judgement calls off the situation and facts as I see them. I wouldn't build any project in

No, I don't have any significant Python2 codebase. I'm making my own judgement calls off the situation and facts as I see them. I wouldn't build any project in Python3 today, because the prod-ready PyPy option isn't there which adds CPU performance as a Python feature and removes the GIL. Just because you agree with part of my post and arguments doesn't mean you have to downvote. I had the GVR quote about semver to directly responded to and added to the original post, which is more than most comments. Anytime I post something critical of Python3 it seems to be a big tug-o-war between those who want to shame me and those who want to show approval. I do it because someone has to say this stuff because I believe the silent majority sees it this way and I frankly find the vocal Python3 promoters to be the loudest of the bunch. There's nothing wrong with other viewpoints unless you're wrong. :) By the way, Mark Lutz is well respected. He has been teaching Python for decades.

orf 11y ago
> I wouldn't build any project in Python3 today, because the prod-ready PyPy option isn't there which adds CPU performance as a Python feature and removes the GIL. But... that's a corner area of Python. Not everyone needs GIL-less STM, and arguably if you're using tonnes of threads maybe you're doing it wrong? Perhaps you should try asyncio :) I mean that reason doesn't even make sense - I'm not using PyPy3 because of the GIL. Great, so uhh what about Django apps? What about small scripts and projects? What about using it for anything other than highly threaded applications that benefit from no GIL? > Just because you agree with part of my post and arguments doesn't mean you have to downvote I didn't (and I wouldn't have), I just upvoted after reading "This being another attempt to make Python2 look as old and crufty as possible" - thinking you viewed this in a positive light. > frankly find the vocal Python3 promoters to be the loudest of the bunch I see the opposite. I see lots of people angry about a statement being turned into a function, angry at not understanding encoding and angry at the Python developers. People demanding a JIT in cPython, people crying about type annotations, etc. Plus a shedload of FUD. I'm sorry, your comments reek of someone angry for not very good reasons and I can't work out why. Python 3 is a much much nicer language to work with, it's more consistent and has less WTF's (along with far less UnicodeEncodeErrors). I took the plunge a year ago and won't ever look back, coding in 2.7-8 at work hurts. I know Mark Lutz is well respected but that doesn't make some of his comments on Python 3 less silly. Anything that has been added to Python 3 has a comment explaining why it sucks, and most of those explanations are senseless. Even things like the statistics module - apparently that sucks because NumPy is better? He implies that should be bundled instead. :/ The matrix operator saves 3+ lines of Numpy code (and is a common operation). This of course sucks because "it's not used by the core language". Oh and it "expands Python's complexity and learning curve needlessly", despite not being used by the core language. Ok Mark.
- BuckRogers 11y ago
  I understand your frustration, because I've never been able to see eye to eye with Python3 folks either. I'm always searching for a convincing reason why I need to stop using 2 and start using 3 but I have yet to find a reason that makes sense considering what I lose moving from 2. Example, I completely agree with all of Lutz's comments and can't see how someone could see it another way. I'm trying though because I'd love to be onboard (I'm sure Mark would too)- but I'd be lying to myself currently to turn a blind eye and move to Python3. On the benefits of Python2 having production-ready PyPy. It's more than GIL free Python. You only discussed that, but the general performance is next-level plus some from CPython3. >Not everyone needs GIL-less STM, You don't need anything, until you do. :) >What about using it for anything other than highly threaded applications that benefit from no GIL? That's a "niche feature" like building async IO, but it actually matters because Python3 cannot and likely won't have it. When it does, it'll most likely remain 3.2. While Python2 has many ways to achieve async IO. >Great, so uhh what about Django apps? What about them? Django is dramatically superior on Python2/PyPy. I use Django on PyPy with gunicorn and nginx and I assure you I have no worries about any CPU bottleneck no matter what I do. >people crying about type annotations, etc. Most of the features in Python3 thus far have been gimmicks, and some are downright embarrassing like type annotations. Python2 is the premier development platform for me. I can use PyPy and I still have the Python3 migration available. Why would I be in any rush when I only lose moving to 3 today. It just doesn't make sense. I find it amazing folks have been banging down the gates wishing there was no GIL in Python- it's here but Python2 only. Therefore no longer a big deal. Not to mention the pure single threaded CPU performance improvements available to 2. :) That to me reeks of pure desperation. Frankly, the only possibility of an "upgrade" available from CPython2/PyPy is not Python3. It's Go, Swift etc.

orf 11y ago

> I wouldn't build any project in Python3 today, because the prod-ready PyPy option isn't there which adds CPU performance as a Python feature and removes the GIL. But... that's a corner area of Python. Not everyone needs GIL-less STM, and arguably if you're using tonnes of threads maybe you're doing it wrong? Perhaps you should try asyncio :) I mean that reason doesn't even make sense - I'm not using PyPy3 because of the GIL. Great, so uhh what about Django apps? What about small scripts and projects? What about using it for anything other than highly threaded applications that benefit from no GIL? > Just because you agree with part of my post and arguments doesn't mean you have to downvote I didn't (and I wouldn't have), I just upvoted after reading "This being another attempt to make Python2 look as old and crufty as possible" - thinking you viewed this in a positive light. > frankly find the vocal Python3 promoters to be the loudest of the bunch I see the opposite. I see lots of people angry about a statement being turned into a function, angry at not understanding encoding and angry at the Python developers. People demanding a JIT in cPython, people crying about type annotations, etc. Plus a shedload of FUD. I'm sorry, your comments reek of someone angry for not very good reasons and I can't work out why. Python 3 is a much much nicer language to work with, it's more consistent and has less WTF's (along with far less UnicodeEncodeErrors). I took the plunge a year ago and won't ever look back, coding in 2.7-8 at work hurts. I know Mark Lutz is well respected but that doesn't make some of his comments on Python 3 less silly. Anything that has been added to Python 3 has a comment explaining why it sucks, and most of those explanations are senseless. Even things like the statistics module - apparently that sucks because NumPy is better? He implies that should be bundled instead. :/ The matrix operator saves 3+ lines of Numpy code (and is a common operation). This of course sucks because "it's not used by the core language". Oh and it "expands Python's complexity and learning curve needlessly", despite not being used by the core language. Ok Mark.

BuckRogers 11y ago
I understand your frustration, because I've never been able to see eye to eye with Python3 folks either. I'm always searching for a convincing reason why I need to stop using 2 and start using 3 but I have yet to find a reason that makes sense considering what I lose moving from 2. Example, I completely agree with all of Lutz's comments and can't see how someone could see it another way. I'm trying though because I'd love to be onboard (I'm sure Mark would too)- but I'd be lying to myself currently to turn a blind eye and move to Python3. On the benefits of Python2 having production-ready PyPy. It's more than GIL free Python. You only discussed that, but the general performance is next-level plus some from CPython3. >Not everyone needs GIL-less STM, You don't need anything, until you do. :) >What about using it for anything other than highly threaded applications that benefit from no GIL? That's a "niche feature" like building async IO, but it actually matters because Python3 cannot and likely won't have it. When it does, it'll most likely remain 3.2. While Python2 has many ways to achieve async IO. >Great, so uhh what about Django apps? What about them? Django is dramatically superior on Python2/PyPy. I use Django on PyPy with gunicorn and nginx and I assure you I have no worries about any CPU bottleneck no matter what I do. >people crying about type annotations, etc. Most of the features in Python3 thus far have been gimmicks, and some are downright embarrassing like type annotations. Python2 is the premier development platform for me. I can use PyPy and I still have the Python3 migration available. Why would I be in any rush when I only lose moving to 3 today. It just doesn't make sense. I find it amazing folks have been banging down the gates wishing there was no GIL in Python- it's here but Python2 only. Therefore no longer a big deal. Not to mention the pure single threaded CPU performance improvements available to 2. :) That to me reeks of pure desperation. Frankly, the only possibility of an "upgrade" available from CPython2/PyPy is not Python3. It's Go, Swift etc.