7 ms·

I'm not so sure. On one hand yeh sure, print vs print() may not have been something users were clamoring for, or worth adding an additional layer of confusion/w

by smcl 10y ago

I'm not so sure. On one hand yeh sure, print vs print() may not have been something users were clamoring for, or worth adding an additional layer of confusion/weirdness over. However it's relatively straight-forward to port such code or instruct someone "ah you don't do print x you do print(x)". From what I've seen the unicode/string bytes/chars is a much bigger factor. Ironically this change made my largest Python app easier in Python 3 (easier to embed unicode literals from various languages), so perhaps my opinion isn't so valid here...

TylerE 10y ago
The unicode change was more impactful, but the print was more like a little fuck you to maintenance devs everywhere. If they wanted print-as-function, fine, but they didn't have to eliminate the print statement at the same time. Some warts you're better off not scratching at.
- guitarbill 10y ago
  >> There was really no compelling reason to do it > the print was more like a little fuck you to maintenance devs everywhere > If they wanted print-as-function, fine, but they didn't have to eliminate the print statement at the same time. Complete and utter hyperbole. You could read PEP-3105 [0] and easily see it isn't true. In addition to this, quoting from both the PEP and the docs [0][1]: > "Luckily, as it is a statement in Python 2, print can be detected and replaced reliably and non-ambiguously by an automated tool, so there should be no major porting problems (provided someone writes the mentioned tool)." > "When using the 2to3 source-to-source conversion tool, all print statements are automatically converted to print() function calls, so this is mostly a non-issue for larger projects." Enough with the bullshit. [0] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3105/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3105/ [1] https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.0.html https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.0.html
  - hartator 10y ago
    At the end of day, if enough people beleive print requiring brakets is an issue, it's becoming an issue. I beleive it and few other people beleive it in this thread. There is no added benefits to have done that. They are just not listening. Now, Pythons 2/3 are sufferin despite being one of best language out there.
    - guitarbill 10y ago
      > There is no added benefits to have done that. For god's sake, it is subtle, but not that hard to understand. There are added benefits. For one thing, consistency. Why is `sys.stdin.write()` a function but `print` isn't? What happens if you want to replace `print` with your own function, e.g. for logging? With a print function, you can just reassign that function, with a statement, you can't. What's the effect of this switch on the bytecode/parsing code? All the arguments against it seem to come down to "I don't like it". > being one of best language out there. Why is Python one of the best languages out there? Ease of use through consistency. Surely that's just an argument for `print()`. Python3 allowed the devs to fix some of the mistakes or sins of the past, similarly `input`/`raw_input`. In the short term, it's maybe a bit of hassle. In the long run, not at all. 2to3 handles this mostly, but you can use `from __future__ import print_function` to test it in Python2. Nobody is refusing to switch to Python3 because of `print` alone.
      - hartator 10y ago
        No one is against making print a function, we are just disappointed against the mandatory bracket thing. It's exactly what's wrong, you are not understanding because you don't want to listen. I agree with all the arguments you are presenting, but why can't you see why having to add - mandatory - brackets can be annoying? In addition, the hack is already there: Python 3.5.2 (default, Dec 2015, 13:05:11) [GCC 4.8.2] on linux print "hello" Traceback (most recent call last): File "python", line 1 print "hello" ^ SyntaxError: Missing parentheses in call to 'print' Why not just calling print? We can do it right now and it's requiring no changes to the 3.x parser. Finally, the print stuff was one of the main reasons I pick Ruby over Python for my startup 5 years ago. I may be alone but I don't think so. And I think I make the right decision. Look at the some of the latest benchmarks Ruby vs Python. Python is now lagging strongly behind when it was ahead 5 years ago with 2.7. The 3.x branch keeps making weird decisions.
  - rspeer 10y ago
    As much as I want Python 3 to replace Python 2, you can't recommend 2to3 while saying "Enough with the bullshit". 2to3 is abandonware that never worked. Now you can use python-future instead, a third-party solution, but the 2to3 part of the PEP was a false promise that gave ammo to Python 2 fans.
    - zodiac 10y ago
      > the 2to3 part of the PEP was a false promise that gave ammo to Python 2 fans The PEP (3105) doesn't actually mention 2to3 anywhere, it just says that the fact that print is a statement (ie handled explicitly in the language syntax) means it is easy to write a tool to do the conversion automatically. Which is a perfectly valid point, even if 2to3 fails to do that for some reason.
anoctopus 10y ago
Sure it's easy to fix, but it made a ton of scripts stop working despite being otherwise unaffected by the version change, all for the sake of a small syntax change. Unicode strings are a much bigger change and required some effort to fix, but it improved the language semantics while the print change rendered lots of scripts incompatible for no good reason. Just deprecating the old syntax and giving tons of warnings for a while before dropping it would have been much better.
- smcl 10y ago
  I totally get you and I genuinely agree, it probably wasn't something so important to risk pissing people off over. As the sister comment to yours mentioned it could be seen as a bit of a "fuck you" to maintenance devs, but if we're honest with ourselves the reason that people haven't moved to Python 3.x after 7+ years isn't really due to print(). edit: sorry I hit "flag" instead of "parent" when trying to navigate back, hope that didn't affect anything (I've since unflagged)
  - TylerE 10y ago
    Ultimately, I think Python 3 had exactly the wrong amount of breakage. They either should have broken way less (e.g., let 2.x code run largely unchanged if it didn't deal closely with unicode) or should have broken more, to give more of carrot... like if some of the new async stuff could have been available in 3.0, that would have given some people a reason to move right away.
    - freehunter 10y ago
      I kind of feel like that's why print changed. It's going to be used in almost every Python script at some point in time, so it forces a breaking change without causing a seriously major break by itself. It's enough to make your script need to be updated, but not enough to make you re-write it from scratch (possibly in another language).
zodiac 10y ago
The concepts of "text" and "array of bytes" should have been separated from the beginning, as they're distinct enough concepts. It's good that they separated them in python 3 but unfortunate that it causes problems because code didn't explicitly distinguish these two concepts.

by smcl 10y ago

TylerE 10y ago

The unicode change was more impactful, but the print was more like a little fuck you to maintenance devs everywhere. If they wanted print-as-function, fine, but they didn't have to eliminate the print statement at the same time. Some warts you're better off not scratching at.

guitarbill 10y ago
>> There was really no compelling reason to do it > the print was more like a little fuck you to maintenance devs everywhere > If they wanted print-as-function, fine, but they didn't have to eliminate the print statement at the same time. Complete and utter hyperbole. You could read PEP-3105 [0] and easily see it isn't true. In addition to this, quoting from both the PEP and the docs [0][1]: > "Luckily, as it is a statement in Python 2, print can be detected and replaced reliably and non-ambiguously by an automated tool, so there should be no major porting problems (provided someone writes the mentioned tool)." > "When using the 2to3 source-to-source conversion tool, all print statements are automatically converted to print() function calls, so this is mostly a non-issue for larger projects." Enough with the bullshit. [0] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3105/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3105/ [1] https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.0.html https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.0.html
- hartator 10y ago
  At the end of day, if enough people beleive print requiring brakets is an issue, it's becoming an issue. I beleive it and few other people beleive it in this thread. There is no added benefits to have done that. They are just not listening. Now, Pythons 2/3 are sufferin despite being one of best language out there.
  - guitarbill 10y ago
    > There is no added benefits to have done that. For god's sake, it is subtle, but not that hard to understand. There are added benefits. For one thing, consistency. Why is `sys.stdin.write()` a function but `print` isn't? What happens if you want to replace `print` with your own function, e.g. for logging? With a print function, you can just reassign that function, with a statement, you can't. What's the effect of this switch on the bytecode/parsing code? All the arguments against it seem to come down to "I don't like it". > being one of best language out there. Why is Python one of the best languages out there? Ease of use through consistency. Surely that's just an argument for `print()`. Python3 allowed the devs to fix some of the mistakes or sins of the past, similarly `input`/`raw_input`. In the short term, it's maybe a bit of hassle. In the long run, not at all. 2to3 handles this mostly, but you can use `from __future__ import print_function` to test it in Python2. Nobody is refusing to switch to Python3 because of `print` alone.
    - hartator 10y ago
      No one is against making print a function, we are just disappointed against the mandatory bracket thing. It's exactly what's wrong, you are not understanding because you don't want to listen. I agree with all the arguments you are presenting, but why can't you see why having to add - mandatory - brackets can be annoying? In addition, the hack is already there: Python 3.5.2 (default, Dec 2015, 13:05:11) [GCC 4.8.2] on linux print "hello" Traceback (most recent call last): File "python", line 1 print "hello" ^ SyntaxError: Missing parentheses in call to 'print' Why not just calling print? We can do it right now and it's requiring no changes to the 3.x parser. Finally, the print stuff was one of the main reasons I pick Ruby over Python for my startup 5 years ago. I may be alone but I don't think so. And I think I make the right decision. Look at the some of the latest benchmarks Ruby vs Python. Python is now lagging strongly behind when it was ahead 5 years ago with 2.7. The 3.x branch keeps making weird decisions.
- rspeer 10y ago
  As much as I want Python 3 to replace Python 2, you can't recommend 2to3 while saying "Enough with the bullshit". 2to3 is abandonware that never worked. Now you can use python-future instead, a third-party solution, but the 2to3 part of the PEP was a false promise that gave ammo to Python 2 fans.
  - zodiac 10y ago
    > the 2to3 part of the PEP was a false promise that gave ammo to Python 2 fans The PEP (3105) doesn't actually mention 2to3 anywhere, it just says that the fact that print is a statement (ie handled explicitly in the language syntax) means it is easy to write a tool to do the conversion automatically. Which is a perfectly valid point, even if 2to3 fails to do that for some reason.

anoctopus 10y ago

Sure it's easy to fix, but it made a ton of scripts stop working despite being otherwise unaffected by the version change, all for the sake of a small syntax change. Unicode strings are a much bigger change and required some effort to fix, but it improved the language semantics while the print change rendered lots of scripts incompatible for no good reason. Just deprecating the old syntax and giving tons of warnings for a while before dropping it would have been much better.

smcl 10y ago
I totally get you and I genuinely agree, it probably wasn't something so important to risk pissing people off over. As the sister comment to yours mentioned it could be seen as a bit of a "fuck you" to maintenance devs, but if we're honest with ourselves the reason that people haven't moved to Python 3.x after 7+ years isn't really due to print(). edit: sorry I hit "flag" instead of "parent" when trying to navigate back, hope that didn't affect anything (I've since unflagged)
- TylerE 10y ago
  Ultimately, I think Python 3 had exactly the wrong amount of breakage. They either should have broken way less (e.g., let 2.x code run largely unchanged if it didn't deal closely with unicode) or should have broken more, to give more of carrot... like if some of the new async stuff could have been available in 3.0, that would have given some people a reason to move right away.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    I kind of feel like that's why print changed. It's going to be used in almost every Python script at some point in time, so it forces a breaking change without causing a seriously major break by itself. It's enough to make your script need to be updated, but not enough to make you re-write it from scratch (possibly in another language).

zodiac 10y ago

The concepts of "text" and "array of bytes" should have been separated from the beginning, as they're distinct enough concepts. It's good that they separated them in python 3 but unfortunate that it causes problems because code didn't explicitly distinguish these two concepts.