2 ms·

> 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 complai

by 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.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    I do understand your position. I have myself felt the pains of Python 2 vs Python 3, I disagree with a lot of the decisions that were taken in Python 3 and often disagree with decisions taken in Python in general. What I dislike is your awful attitude, for the reasons that other people as well as myself have pointed out - reasons that you are unwilling to hear. You are making incorrect assumptions about what others are telling you and feel like your attitude is validated because "people just don't understand that it's justifiable to be upset about Py3". We do understand that. There is no denying that the python 3 migration was a mess. I'm not denigrating your position, I'm dismissing your attitude and I question the reasoning you are bringing to the table to justify it. There's far more valid reasons to dislike Python 3 than "divisions changed".
    - geocar 10y ago
      > I do understand your position. No you don't. I said: "I can't get anyone to pay to rewrite something, and I'm not working for free" And I didn't get a single constructive response. If oblio meant "ignore the existing code base and just (re) write new programs in python3", then my first response is exactly appropriate. > You are making incorrect assumptions about what others are telling you When someone says something, you have to make an assumption about what they mean because you don't know what they mean. You don't know what I mean, and you're making incorrect assumptions about what I meant: You don't get it both ways, you do not get to belittle me for not understanding you and what you claim oblio meant, while standing high and mighty not understanding what I meant. > What I dislike is your awful attitude > I'm not denigrating your position. … There's far more valid reasons to dislike Python 3 than "divisions changed". Which is of course, one of half a dozen reasons I've raised as being problems with python3. Perhaps you need to check the definition of denigrate, because that's exactly what you're doing. You refuse to argue the point I have, and insist on cherry picking the things that you think make you feel smart.
freehunter 10y ago
So you really want to bank your career on a petty argument that started because you failed to read properly, then continued because you can't admit you were wrong? Good luck in your future endeavors...
- geocar 10y ago
  Where exactly was I wrong? I said[1] there's a point where existing programs can't be extended. Python2 programmers have to decide whether they're choosing python3 or something else. And then there's this surreal suggestion that I recommend replacing python2 programs with python3 programs[2] (even after I said I can't convince anyone to do it), while simultaneously not replacing python2 programs with python3 programs[3]. I'm trying to give you guys the benefit of the doubt, but I don't even think you're trying to have a conversation, but justify your decision that you've already made to support python3. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13062079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13062079 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13062349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13062349 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13062151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13062151

by geocar 10y ago

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.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  I do understand your position. I have myself felt the pains of Python 2 vs Python 3, I disagree with a lot of the decisions that were taken in Python 3 and often disagree with decisions taken in Python in general. What I dislike is your awful attitude, for the reasons that other people as well as myself have pointed out - reasons that you are unwilling to hear. You are making incorrect assumptions about what others are telling you and feel like your attitude is validated because "people just don't understand that it's justifiable to be upset about Py3". We do understand that. There is no denying that the python 3 migration was a mess. I'm not denigrating your position, I'm dismissing your attitude and I question the reasoning you are bringing to the table to justify it. There's far more valid reasons to dislike Python 3 than "divisions changed".
  - geocar 10y ago
    > I do understand your position. No you don't. I said: "I can't get anyone to pay to rewrite something, and I'm not working for free" And I didn't get a single constructive response. If oblio meant "ignore the existing code base and just (re) write new programs in python3", then my first response is exactly appropriate. > You are making incorrect assumptions about what others are telling you When someone says something, you have to make an assumption about what they mean because you don't know what they mean. You don't know what I mean, and you're making incorrect assumptions about what I meant: You don't get it both ways, you do not get to belittle me for not understanding you and what you claim oblio meant, while standing high and mighty not understanding what I meant. > What I dislike is your awful attitude > I'm not denigrating your position. … There's far more valid reasons to dislike Python 3 than "divisions changed". Which is of course, one of half a dozen reasons I've raised as being problems with python3. Perhaps you need to check the definition of denigrate, because that's exactly what you're doing. You refuse to argue the point I have, and insist on cherry picking the things that you think make you feel smart.

freehunter 10y ago

So you really want to bank your career on a petty argument that started because you failed to read properly, then continued because you can't admit you were wrong? Good luck in your future endeavors...

geocar 10y ago
Where exactly was I wrong? I said[1] there's a point where existing programs can't be extended. Python2 programmers have to decide whether they're choosing python3 or something else. And then there's this surreal suggestion that I recommend replacing python2 programs with python3 programs[2] (even after I said I can't convince anyone to do it), while simultaneously not replacing python2 programs with python3 programs[3]. I'm trying to give you guys the benefit of the doubt, but I don't even think you're trying to have a conversation, but justify your decision that you've already made to support python3. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13062079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13062079 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13062349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13062349 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13062151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13062151