9 ms·

The problem with a lot of these optimizing tools for Python is that they only support Python 2.7 not Python 3.

njbooher 10y ago
Not really a problem here as most of science still seems to be using Python 2. edit: Cython was always great for Python 2 and apparently supports 3. http://cython.org http://cython.org
- ericfrederich 10y ago
  Yeah. I came across C library that used Cython to create Python bindings. It was funny, they could easily support both Python 2 and Python 3 at the same time since all their binding code was in Cython, it was only their installation script witch used an incompatibility (print statement)
  - brian_herman 10y ago
    What was the library?
- shoyer 10y ago
  Numba also supports Python 3.
Demiurge 10y ago
As a happy Python user for 10 years, I didn't even wonder whether it supports python3. Maybe the problem is somewhere else, and not with the library I'm looking forward to trying?
- nerdponx 10y ago
  Are you insinuating that the problem is with Python 3? What is actually so much more amazing about Python 2 that you would rather freeze the language than upgrade?
  - kolokolo 10y ago
    It ain't broken. Why fix it?
    - witty_username 10y ago
      Python 3 has many new features and fixes. Maybe 5 years ago this was true, but not today.
      - Nullabillity 10y ago
        And how many of them can't be backported to 2? You don't need to freeze the language, but if the alternative is breaking backwards compatibility after all that time...
        goatlover 10y ago
        It's been seven years. Get over it already. That attitude keeps Python a fractured community.
        kolokolo 10y ago
        This argument is just as valid as "You've been trying for 7 years. Give up already."
      - snovv_crash 10y ago
        What is there in 3 that would benefit scientific computing which 2.7 doesn't have? TBH I don't see the value proposition. For web stuff you have asyncio, and for hackers there is the venv improvements, but what is there for scientific users who have work to get done?
    - nerdponx 10y ago
      You could've said the same thing about black-and-white TV, AM radio, horse drawn carriages, et al.
bmer 10y ago
I use Python for my research work...and this has never been a problem for me, I suppose because I use Python 2.7, and I guess I am "part of the problem"?
- frozenport 10y ago
  Yes you are.
  - labrador 10y ago
    You have the problem, not bmer.
    - goatlover 10y ago
      The problem is not upgrading after years of 3 being out.
      - snovv_crash 10y ago
        What if you don't care about the version of python, but you have a bunch of code that runs on 2.7. You don't get anything from moving to 3, you have to learn the new syntax features (friction), you need to upgrade all you code (friction) and some of the libraries you used before don't work and need fixing (friction). If you don't use asyncio, and you already had venv working, what do you gain? For someone to whom python is just a fancy pipe-wrench, why keep up with the new shiny?
        jjawssd 10y ago
        You are right. Just like we should all just be using Word 97 on Windows 95 because, you know, word processing is just word processing in the end, isn't it?
        dagw 10y ago
        I take it you don't remember the Office 2000 -> 2003 upgrade debacle and peoples unwillingness to just get on board. Most people I know simply skipped 2003 and only reluctantly hopped to 2007 after much gnashing of teeth. I still know a handful of people still using Word 2000.
mrweasel 10y ago
I never looked into, but I wonder if there's something in Python 3 that makes it hard to do these kind of things to, compared to Python 2.7. Python 3 is the platform I use for almost everything, going back to 2.7 is always a major pain. 10 minutes into some 2.7 work and you have to deal with encoding and you start wondering if it would be quicker to just upgrade to 3.5. Of cause if you mainly do numbers, there's perhaps little gained from Python 3.
- Arkanosis 10y ago
  Can't talk for Pythran devs and others, but in the case of shedskin, one of the issues is the removal of the “compiler” module in Python 3, on which shedskin relies to, well, parse the Python code. This, plus some syntax changes, that are not really bigger that some that were introduced between, say, 2.6 and 2.7, but that are mandatory and breaking backward compatibility. So, nothing “hard”, really, you just have to do the work again (and prepare to support two versions for a long time, instead of virtually only one).

Not really a problem here as most of science still seems to be using Python 2. edit: Cython was always great for Python 2 and apparently supports 3. http://cython.org http://cython.org

ericfrederich 10y ago
Yeah. I came across C library that used Cython to create Python bindings. It was funny, they could easily support both Python 2 and Python 3 at the same time since all their binding code was in Cython, it was only their installation script witch used an incompatibility (print statement)
- brian_herman 10y ago
  What was the library?
shoyer 10y ago
Numba also supports Python 3.

Demiurge 10y ago

As a happy Python user for 10 years, I didn't even wonder whether it supports python3. Maybe the problem is somewhere else, and not with the library I'm looking forward to trying?

nerdponx 10y ago
Are you insinuating that the problem is with Python 3? What is actually so much more amazing about Python 2 that you would rather freeze the language than upgrade?
- kolokolo 10y ago
  It ain't broken. Why fix it?
  - witty_username 10y ago
    Python 3 has many new features and fixes. Maybe 5 years ago this was true, but not today.
    - Nullabillity 10y ago
      And how many of them can't be backported to 2? You don't need to freeze the language, but if the alternative is breaking backwards compatibility after all that time...
      - goatlover 10y ago
        It's been seven years. Get over it already. That attitude keeps Python a fractured community.
        kolokolo 10y ago
        This argument is just as valid as "You've been trying for 7 years. Give up already."
    - snovv_crash 10y ago
      What is there in 3 that would benefit scientific computing which 2.7 doesn't have? TBH I don't see the value proposition. For web stuff you have asyncio, and for hackers there is the venv improvements, but what is there for scientific users who have work to get done?
  - nerdponx 10y ago
    You could've said the same thing about black-and-white TV, AM radio, horse drawn carriages, et al.

bmer 10y ago

I use Python for my research work...and this has never been a problem for me, I suppose because I use Python 2.7, and I guess I am "part of the problem"?

frozenport 10y ago
Yes you are.
- labrador 10y ago
  You have the problem, not bmer.
  - goatlover 10y ago
    The problem is not upgrading after years of 3 being out.
    - snovv_crash 10y ago
      What if you don't care about the version of python, but you have a bunch of code that runs on 2.7. You don't get anything from moving to 3, you have to learn the new syntax features (friction), you need to upgrade all you code (friction) and some of the libraries you used before don't work and need fixing (friction). If you don't use asyncio, and you already had venv working, what do you gain? For someone to whom python is just a fancy pipe-wrench, why keep up with the new shiny?
      - jjawssd 10y ago
        You are right. Just like we should all just be using Word 97 on Windows 95 because, you know, word processing is just word processing in the end, isn't it?
        dagw 10y ago
        I take it you don't remember the Office 2000 -> 2003 upgrade debacle and peoples unwillingness to just get on board. Most people I know simply skipped 2003 and only reluctantly hopped to 2007 after much gnashing of teeth. I still know a handful of people still using Word 2000.

mrweasel 10y ago

I never looked into, but I wonder if there's something in Python 3 that makes it hard to do these kind of things to, compared to Python 2.7. Python 3 is the platform I use for almost everything, going back to 2.7 is always a major pain. 10 minutes into some 2.7 work and you have to deal with encoding and you start wondering if it would be quicker to just upgrade to 3.5. Of cause if you mainly do numbers, there's perhaps little gained from Python 3.

Arkanosis 10y ago
Can't talk for Pythran devs and others, but in the case of shedskin, one of the issues is the removal of the “compiler” module in Python 3, on which shedskin relies to, well, parse the Python code. This, plus some syntax changes, that are not really bigger that some that were introduced between, say, 2.6 and 2.7, but that are mandatory and breaking backward compatibility. So, nothing “hard”, really, you just have to do the work again (and prepare to support two versions for a long time, instead of virtually only one).