4 ms·

According to the Python 3 Wall of Superpowers[1], almost every commonly-used library has adopted 3. Now the problem is getting people to realize that... I was t

by msoucy 10y ago

According to the Python 3 Wall of Superpowers[1], almost every commonly-used library has adopted 3. Now the problem is getting people to realize that... I was talking with someone just a month ago who said that there were no numeric processing libraries on 3 and so they couldn't switch. [1]: https://python3wos.appspot.com/ https://python3wos.appspot.com/

cbcoutinho 10y ago
What is a numeric processing library? Numpy?
- goatlover 10y ago
  Also SciPy, SymPy, and Pandas. They've supported Python 3 for several years.
  - cbcoutinho 10y ago
    My comment was kind of a loaded question. If they consider Numpy a numeric package, then yes, it's been there for a while and they haven't been paying attention. That includes the packages you mentioned as well
bendmorris 10y ago
>Now the problem is getting people to realize that... I realize it, but (1) even after large libraries support 3 there will still be a long tail of libraries that aren't ported (and will never be), and (2) I see very little value in porting our very large code bases to Python 3, with its breaking changes and subtle behavioral differences that need to be thoroughly tested. There's no must-have feature for us to justify that effort, so we won't be making the switch for the foreseeable future. IMO Python should have put a lot more effort into backwards compatibility when releasing Python 3. I'm genuinely concerned that this release has killed Python, and I'm not alone.
- kstrauser 10y ago
  > I see very little value in porting our very large code bases to Python 3 That's too bad. We've started writing all new code in 3, and now I can't stand working with 2. It feels clunky and old in comparison. A year ago I never would have believed I could feel that way, but I do: I will not willingly (that is, absent strong business reasons) write Python 2 code again.
- fractalb 10y ago
  > (1) even after large libraries support 3 there will still be a long tail of libraries that aren't ported (and will never be) That should be a non-issue unless you require one of those libraries. > There's no must-have feature for us to justify that effort, so we won't be making the switch for the foreseeable future. There's no reason for making the switch if you're going to ditch your code base in the foreseeable future. Otherwise, you'll have to justify your decision in the unforeseeable future. And thereafter.
  - bendmorris 10y ago
    >That should be a non-issue unless you require one of those libraries. That's kind of a truism, isn't it? I don't understand the dismissiveness - there's certainly a sizable portion of users that use libraries other than the top 50 most popular.
    - m45t3r 10y ago
      There is ton of new interesting libraries being compatible with Python 3 only, so you can make this argument in either way. In the end, you should ask yourself some questions: Am I starting a new project or continuing an older one? If the former one, Python 3 should be preferred unless some library I need is only available for Python 2. If the latter, I should ask if the cost of migrating my codebase makes sense. If not, Python 2 is still a viable choice until 2020 at least.
- criddell 10y ago
  Isn't that the same argument that so many companies used to hang on to IE6 for so long? There were a ton of in-house applications built on ActiveX and IE6 quirks and porting to something newer wasn't worth the cost. Eventually, don't you think that you will start using a more modern version of Python?

by msoucy 10y ago

cbcoutinho 10y ago

What is a numeric processing library? Numpy?

goatlover 10y ago
Also SciPy, SymPy, and Pandas. They've supported Python 3 for several years.
- cbcoutinho 10y ago
  My comment was kind of a loaded question. If they consider Numpy a numeric package, then yes, it's been there for a while and they haven't been paying attention. That includes the packages you mentioned as well

bendmorris 10y ago

>Now the problem is getting people to realize that... I realize it, but (1) even after large libraries support 3 there will still be a long tail of libraries that aren't ported (and will never be), and (2) I see very little value in porting our very large code bases to Python 3, with its breaking changes and subtle behavioral differences that need to be thoroughly tested. There's no must-have feature for us to justify that effort, so we won't be making the switch for the foreseeable future. IMO Python should have put a lot more effort into backwards compatibility when releasing Python 3. I'm genuinely concerned that this release has killed Python, and I'm not alone.

kstrauser 10y ago
> I see very little value in porting our very large code bases to Python 3 That's too bad. We've started writing all new code in 3, and now I can't stand working with 2. It feels clunky and old in comparison. A year ago I never would have believed I could feel that way, but I do: I will not willingly (that is, absent strong business reasons) write Python 2 code again.
fractalb 10y ago
> (1) even after large libraries support 3 there will still be a long tail of libraries that aren't ported (and will never be) That should be a non-issue unless you require one of those libraries. > There's no must-have feature for us to justify that effort, so we won't be making the switch for the foreseeable future. There's no reason for making the switch if you're going to ditch your code base in the foreseeable future. Otherwise, you'll have to justify your decision in the unforeseeable future. And thereafter.
- bendmorris 10y ago
  >That should be a non-issue unless you require one of those libraries. That's kind of a truism, isn't it? I don't understand the dismissiveness - there's certainly a sizable portion of users that use libraries other than the top 50 most popular.
  - m45t3r 10y ago
    There is ton of new interesting libraries being compatible with Python 3 only, so you can make this argument in either way. In the end, you should ask yourself some questions: Am I starting a new project or continuing an older one? If the former one, Python 3 should be preferred unless some library I need is only available for Python 2. If the latter, I should ask if the cost of migrating my codebase makes sense. If not, Python 2 is still a viable choice until 2020 at least.
criddell 10y ago
Isn't that the same argument that so many companies used to hang on to IE6 for so long? There were a ton of in-house applications built on ActiveX and IE6 quirks and porting to something newer wasn't worth the cost. Eventually, don't you think that you will start using a more modern version of Python?