4 ms·

I believe the path being suggested is: write new software in Python 3, or at least in a 3-friendly way.

geocar 10y ago
That's easy to say, but Python3 isn't good enough: * Python3 is slower than Python2 * Twisted still doesn't work in Python3 * Division changed. And so on. I'm not improving Python3 since I don't get any return on it, so I'll simply use a different language for new projects. However you might want to reconsider: Other people parsed it the same way -- and one person even thought it was a good thing that they got to charge again.
- minitech 10y ago
  If you write new software in Python 3, why does it matter if division changed?
  - geocar 10y ago
    First, it presupposes I'm going to write new software in Python 3 rather than justifying why I should write new software in python 3. Second, it matters because I'm thinking about python4 and python5. I've already been through this and got burned moving from python1.5 to python2, and python3 has been very uncomfortable thus far. Thirdly, it matters because I work in a lot of mature (multi-decade) codebases, and figuring out what division is supposed to mean twenty five years into development is disconcerting. Then when I'm simply not convinced python is a good investment anymore, this quippy attitude here is extremely off-putting. Do you really want to know why I don't like python as much as I used to? Or are you trying to justify your decision to further invest?
    - minitech 10y ago
      > First, it presupposes I'm going to write new software in Python 3 rather than justifying why I should write new software in python 3. It does, because that’s what you were responding to: > I believe the path being suggested is: write new software in Python 3, or at least in a 3-friendly way. I assumed your list was a list of reasons not to write new software in Python 3, and found division oddly out of place.
      - geocar 10y ago
        > It does, because that’s what you were responding to: I believe the path being suggested is: write new software in Python 3, or at least in a 3-friendly way. You're mistaken. Start at the top of the thread again[1]. The question is whether I (or anyone else) should even bother with Python3. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13061570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13061570
- scrollaway 10y ago
  Python 3 is not slower than Python 2, you've already been corrected elsewhere in the comments and disregarded it. Python 3.0 was slower than Python 2, but we're up to 3.6 now. > Division changed. For the better. I don't get you.
  - geocar 10y ago
    > you've already been corrected elsewhere in the comments and disregarded it Link please? Edit: Do you mean this other person[1] who has a performance complaint? [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13062068 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13062068 Do you really think being aggressive and bullish is going to convince people to stay with Python? Honestly, I'm considering using screenshots of this conversation as to why my new customer shouldn't invest in Python: Immature and insecure community, ignorant of the problems that companies face.
    - linsomniac 10y ago
      Be careful with that, you don't exactly come off smelling like roses in this conversation...
    - scrollaway 10y ago
      So to recap: You hop into this conversation claiming that you can't upgrade to Python 3 because you're not being paid for it. Someone else tells you that the correct approach is to think of it as being unnecessary to port old software. After you double down on your "I'm not working for free!" strawman, I point out that you're not reading what people are saying to you. You triple-down on your assumption and when you finally realize your mistake, you complain about division changing. And when I point out that that's nonsense, you call me "aggressive and bullish". Uh, yeah, you wanna share this conversation around be my guest. What I'm getting is you care a lot less about the "problems companies face" than about getting paid.
      - geocar 10y ago
        > So to recap: You hop into this conversation claiming that you can't upgrade to Python 3 because you're not being paid for it. No, I can't upgrade to Python3 because there is no upgrade path. > Someone else tells you that the correct approach is to think of it as being unnecessary to port old software. Because there's no upgrade path. Python2 ends at some point in the near future, and if they want to be extended they will need to be rewritten. > After you double down on your "I'm not working for free!" strawman, I point out that you're not reading what people are saying to you. And I respond by saying: yes they are actually saying it. Here's an example: I consider Python 3 a huge benefit for a similar reason: I can avoid or charge $$$ for people still using 2.6 and: I do hope other language communities have learned from the Python2 Python3 fiasco. Dealing with no new features in a version with millions of lines of code already written, enough syntactical and other issues that require large underlying changes, etc. and: I believe the path being suggested is: write new software in Python 3, or at least in a 3-friendly way. Which really was you saying, don't worry about software that's already been written. It's dead. Write new software instead! > You triple-down on your assumption and when you finally realize your mistake, you complain about division changing (and all the libraries that don't work, and the performance issue). And when I point out that that's nonsense, you call me "aggressive and bullish". You have a choice here: You can try to understand that I'm frustrated by my position, and that other people are frustrated by this position, and instead of trying to denigrate my position, try to find an actual solution for it. Or you can simply wave your hands, claim there's no solution, and watch all the python2 programmers decide between python3 and anything else. > What I'm getting is you care a lot less about the "problems companies face" than about getting paid. Listen: You don't have to work for free. Companies that would fail unless you work for free will probably fail anyway. It means they aren't thinking about what they actually need software for. We have substantial number of C programs that exist for twenty-five years or more, and we barely have insubstantial python programs that can last for more than a couple. If you don't understand how it's not in anyone's best interests to keep rewriting business functions over and over again, then you really shouldn't be in this conversation, because you clearly think this is about something else.

That's easy to say, but Python3 isn't good enough: * Python3 is slower than Python2 * Twisted still doesn't work in Python3 * Division changed. And so on. I'm not improving Python3 since I don't get any return on it, so I'll simply use a different language for new projects. However you might want to reconsider: Other people parsed it the same way -- and one person even thought it was a good thing that they got to charge again.

minitech 10y ago
If you write new software in Python 3, why does it matter if division changed?
- geocar 10y ago
  First, it presupposes I'm going to write new software in Python 3 rather than justifying why I should write new software in python 3. Second, it matters because I'm thinking about python4 and python5. I've already been through this and got burned moving from python1.5 to python2, and python3 has been very uncomfortable thus far. Thirdly, it matters because I work in a lot of mature (multi-decade) codebases, and figuring out what division is supposed to mean twenty five years into development is disconcerting. Then when I'm simply not convinced python is a good investment anymore, this quippy attitude here is extremely off-putting. Do you really want to know why I don't like python as much as I used to? Or are you trying to justify your decision to further invest?
  - minitech 10y ago
    > First, it presupposes I'm going to write new software in Python 3 rather than justifying why I should write new software in python 3. It does, because that’s what you were responding to: > I believe the path being suggested is: write new software in Python 3, or at least in a 3-friendly way. I assumed your list was a list of reasons not to write new software in Python 3, and found division oddly out of place.
    - geocar 10y ago
      > It does, because that’s what you were responding to: I believe the path being suggested is: write new software in Python 3, or at least in a 3-friendly way. You're mistaken. Start at the top of the thread again[1]. The question is whether I (or anyone else) should even bother with Python3. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13061570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13061570
scrollaway 10y ago
Python 3 is not slower than Python 2, you've already been corrected elsewhere in the comments and disregarded it. Python 3.0 was slower than Python 2, but we're up to 3.6 now. > Division changed. For the better. I don't get you.
- geocar 10y ago
  > you've already been corrected elsewhere in the comments and disregarded it Link please? Edit: Do you mean this other person[1] who has a performance complaint? [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13062068 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13062068 Do you really think being aggressive and bullish is going to convince people to stay with Python? Honestly, I'm considering using screenshots of this conversation as to why my new customer shouldn't invest in Python: Immature and insecure community, ignorant of the problems that companies face.
  - linsomniac 10y ago
    Be careful with that, you don't exactly come off smelling like roses in this conversation...
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    So to recap: You hop into this conversation claiming that you can't upgrade to Python 3 because you're not being paid for it. Someone else tells you that the correct approach is to think of it as being unnecessary to port old software. After you double down on your "I'm not working for free!" strawman, I point out that you're not reading what people are saying to you. You triple-down on your assumption and when you finally realize your mistake, you complain about division changing. And when I point out that that's nonsense, you call me "aggressive and bullish". Uh, yeah, you wanna share this conversation around be my guest. What I'm getting is you care a lot less about the "problems companies face" than about getting paid.
    - geocar 10y ago
      > So to recap: You hop into this conversation claiming that you can't upgrade to Python 3 because you're not being paid for it. No, I can't upgrade to Python3 because there is no upgrade path. > Someone else tells you that the correct approach is to think of it as being unnecessary to port old software. Because there's no upgrade path. Python2 ends at some point in the near future, and if they want to be extended they will need to be rewritten. > After you double down on your "I'm not working for free!" strawman, I point out that you're not reading what people are saying to you. And I respond by saying: yes they are actually saying it. Here's an example: I consider Python 3 a huge benefit for a similar reason: I can avoid or charge $$$ for people still using 2.6 and: I do hope other language communities have learned from the Python2 Python3 fiasco. Dealing with no new features in a version with millions of lines of code already written, enough syntactical and other issues that require large underlying changes, etc. and: I believe the path being suggested is: write new software in Python 3, or at least in a 3-friendly way. Which really was you saying, don't worry about software that's already been written. It's dead. Write new software instead! > You triple-down on your assumption and when you finally realize your mistake, you complain about division changing (and all the libraries that don't work, and the performance issue). And when I point out that that's nonsense, you call me "aggressive and bullish". You have a choice here: You can try to understand that I'm frustrated by my position, and that other people are frustrated by this position, and instead of trying to denigrate my position, try to find an actual solution for it. Or you can simply wave your hands, claim there's no solution, and watch all the python2 programmers decide between python3 and anything else. > What I'm getting is you care a lot less about the "problems companies face" than about getting paid. Listen: You don't have to work for free. Companies that would fail unless you work for free will probably fail anyway. It means they aren't thinking about what they actually need software for. We have substantial number of C programs that exist for twenty-five years or more, and we barely have insubstantial python programs that can last for more than a couple. If you don't understand how it's not in anyone's best interests to keep rewriting business functions over and over again, then you really shouldn't be in this conversation, because you clearly think this is about something else.