3 ms·

I don't understand who would want the python 2 support, the language does not natively support types, is no longer maintained (except for security patches). Peo

by takeda 11y ago

I don't understand who would want the python 2 support, the language does not natively support types, is no longer maintained (except for security patches). People that use python 2 generally maintain existing code base. Wouldn't be better to concentrate on 3.x only and full async support?

klibertp 11y ago
> People that use python 2 generally maintain existing code base. Yeah, probably maintaining large, legacy codebases, which are underdocumented and undertested but over-architected to compensate... And such people would immediately and directly benefit from an optional static type-checker. So maybe it's for them?
spoondan 11y ago
Authors of libraries, frameworks, and tools that must support Python 2.
RubyPinch 11y ago
python 2 has a lot more implicitness when it comes to types (everything is comparable with everything else, unicodestrings/bytestrings autoconvert, etc. > People that use python 2 generally maintain existing code base. maintain being a key word there, finding bugs before they become a problem is always a good thing. - - - Also python 2 is maintained beyond security patches, but only by third parties: the core developers won't be adding new features, but third parties are welcome to spend time and effort to backport python 3 features to python 2 (as long as it isn't an incompatible change for py2) At least that is what my understanding of the situation is
oconnor663 11y ago
My guess for the most immediate reason is that Dropbox uses a lot of Python 2, and it sounds like they're paying for the vast majority of mypy's development. Apart from the sweet sweet cash though, missing Python 2 support makes it harder for people to take you as a dependency. I think it's similar to why a lot of Python projects put in the effort to add Windows support, even if only a tiny fraction of their users actually run Windows. If your project doesn't support Windows/Python 2, and my project does, I can't take you as a dependency. If my project might ever in the future support Windows/Python 2, I can't take you as a dependency. That's a huge drag on adoption. I sincerely hope that in five years, supporting `async`/`await` will be more important for adoption than supporting Python 2.
- munificent 11y ago
  > I think it's similar to why a lot of Python projects put in the effort to add Windows support, even if only a tiny fraction of their users actually run Windows. My experience is that most developers who personally use nix OSes vastly* underestimate the number of Windows developers out there.
hogu 11y ago
there are tons of businesses that write only python 2 code (like, every finance shop I've ever worked or consulted at)
- takeda 11y ago
  I understand that, but if they are not willing to port their code to python 3, what would make them go through their old code and start annotating types in it?
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
Python 2 is supposed to be dead but it's very much alive. What should have been a simple version upgrade became a fork.

by takeda 11y ago

klibertp 11y ago

> People that use python 2 generally maintain existing code base. Yeah, probably maintaining large, legacy codebases, which are underdocumented and undertested but over-architected to compensate... And such people would immediately and directly benefit from an optional static type-checker. So maybe it's for them?

spoondan 11y ago

Authors of libraries, frameworks, and tools that must support Python 2.

RubyPinch 11y ago

python 2 has a lot more implicitness when it comes to types (everything is comparable with everything else, unicodestrings/bytestrings autoconvert, etc. > People that use python 2 generally maintain existing code base. maintain being a key word there, finding bugs before they become a problem is always a good thing. - - - Also python 2 is maintained beyond security patches, but only by third parties: the core developers won't be adding new features, but third parties are welcome to spend time and effort to backport python 3 features to python 2 (as long as it isn't an incompatible change for py2) At least that is what my understanding of the situation is

oconnor663 11y ago

My guess for the most immediate reason is that Dropbox uses a lot of Python 2, and it sounds like they're paying for the vast majority of mypy's development. Apart from the sweet sweet cash though, missing Python 2 support makes it harder for people to take you as a dependency. I think it's similar to why a lot of Python projects put in the effort to add Windows support, even if only a tiny fraction of their users actually run Windows. If your project doesn't support Windows/Python 2, and my project does, I can't take you as a dependency. If my project might ever in the future support Windows/Python 2, I can't take you as a dependency. That's a huge drag on adoption. I sincerely hope that in five years, supporting `async`/`await` will be more important for adoption than supporting Python 2.

munificent 11y ago
> I think it's similar to why a lot of Python projects put in the effort to add Windows support, even if only a tiny fraction of their users actually run Windows. My experience is that most developers who personally use nix OSes vastly* underestimate the number of Windows developers out there.

hogu 11y ago

there are tons of businesses that write only python 2 code (like, every finance shop I've ever worked or consulted at)

takeda 11y ago
I understand that, but if they are not willing to port their code to python 3, what would make them go through their old code and start annotating types in it?

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

Python 2 is supposed to be dead but it's very much alive. What should have been a simple version upgrade became a fork.