6 ms·

Which numbers? People keep saying things like that, but things like the Python 3 Wall of Superpowers https://python3wos.appspot.com/ https://python3wos.appspot.

by dbaupp 10y ago

Which numbers? People keep saying things like that, but things like the Python 3 Wall of Superpowers https://python3wos.appspot.com/ https://python3wos.appspot.com/ don't seem to support it. Do you have something more concrete?

coldtea 10y ago
The "Wall" is just numbers for Python3, without context for how it compares to Python 2. For 2.7 Pypy reported 419,227,040 downloads for 2016. At the same time, for ALL 3.x versions combined (up to 3.6) there are just: ~52 million downloads. That's 1/8th of the Python 2 downloads.
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  Given that there are only 7.5 billion humans on the planet, and that rather significantly fewer than 1 in 20 people are PyPy-using developers, perhaps those numbers should be taken with a grain of salt? The message I would take from those statistics is that needing a fresh download of Pypy is less common among 3.x users than among 2.7 users, who apparently needed to reinstall from the web at least a few times a day during 2016.
  - gsnedders 10y ago
    It should be PyPI rather than PyPy in the parent, FWIW.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      Oops, mea culpa.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Given that there are only 7.5 billion humans on the planet, and that rather significantly fewer than 1 in 20 people are PyPy-using developers, perhaps those numbers should be taken with a grain of salt? Those are not downloads of PyPi, but of packages. It's not like "number of downloads == number of individual developers". Those are packages, including package updates. A single developer can download 50 deps across his codebase, and update them to later versions 2-3 times a year.
    - dbaupp 10y ago
      That response is talking about something else because your original comment accidentally said "PyPy", which is an implementation of Python, instead of "PyPI", the package repository.
    - orf 10y ago
      > A single developer can download 50 deps across his codebase, and update them to later versions 2-3 times a year. As if individual developers are the reason behind the bulk of the downloads. I wonder how many downloads Travis alone counts for? Your hate of Python 3 in every discussion about it is frankly baffling.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >As if individual developers are the reason behind the bulk of the downloads. I wonder how many downloads Travis alone counts for? Travis runs/tests user projects, so there's nothing about it that's especially partial to Python 2 over Python 3. >Your hate of Python 3 in every discussion about it is frankly baffling. Or, you know, my pragmatic assessment of its popularity. That you'd even use the word "hate" (when in fact, I like Python 3 over 2.7, even if its mostly tame updates over what 2.7 offers) shows that you're probably too partisan. I was enthused with Python 3 even when it was only a vision called Python3K back in 2000-ish. My personal preference has nothing to do with whether I see more people using it or not. The situation is not unlike the perennial "next year is when Linux dominates the desktop", which has been every year since 1999.
        orf 10y ago
        > even if its mostly tame updates over what 2.7 offers > The situation is not unlike the perennial "next year is when Linux dominates the desktop", which has been every year since 1999. Your bias is showing, as it does in every comment section on this site regarding Python 3, as you make comment after comment about how inferior Python 3 is and how nobody is using it at all because your sample of 2 companies shows this and how it personally hurt your family or whatever. You don't stop. Either you hate it or you hate something else and use Python 3 as a vent.
  - simula67 10y ago
    > The message I would take from those statistics is that needing a fresh download of Pypy is less common among 3.x users than among 2.7 users, who apparently needed to reinstall from the web at least a few times a day during 2016. Occam's Razor would suggest that there are fewer Python 3 users
- lima 10y ago
  The PyPy statistics aren't worth much since they're counting all sorts of automated downloads/dependencies/etc. That's why packages like supervisor and graphite - which aren't libraries - are among the top downloads.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >The PyPy statistics aren't worth much since they're counting all sorts of automated downloads/dependencies/etc. Those would exist for both 2.x and 3.x so it's not a differentiating factor.
- kstrauser 10y ago
  A huge confounding factor: newer Py3 codebases are more likely to be built with newer pipeline tooling like devpi (to cache PyPI downloads), wheel (to cache locally-built packages), and Docker (which caches all the things). Our legacy Python 2 build pipelines that we're actively moving off of hit PyPI far more often than our Py3 processes.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >A huge confounding factor: newer Py3 codebases are more likely to be built with newer pipeline tooling like devpi (to cache PyPI downloads), wheel (to cache locally-built packages), and Docker (which caches all the things). Maybe in your case, but from what I've seen, I seriously doubt use of Docker or Devpi makes any dent in newer Py3 codebase dependency downloads. Besides, tons of new codebases for greenfield projects are still done in 2.x Python. Not sure how it is in scientific computing area, but for enterprise/web apps, any company that has legacy 2.x code and libs in production (which is most of them) will continue to write new parts (including new projects) in 2.7 for compatibility with their Python production setup. 3.x is either from companies that didn't already have significant 2.x Python code in production (generally newer companies that for some reason went with Python instead of Node or Go that the cool kids use) or new programmers that just get started and start with 3.x.

by dbaupp 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago

The "Wall" is just numbers for Python3, without context for how it compares to Python 2. For 2.7 Pypy reported 419,227,040 downloads for 2016. At the same time, for ALL 3.x versions combined (up to 3.6) there are just: ~52 million downloads. That's 1/8th of the Python 2 downloads.

LeifCarrotson 10y ago
Given that there are only 7.5 billion humans on the planet, and that rather significantly fewer than 1 in 20 people are PyPy-using developers, perhaps those numbers should be taken with a grain of salt? The message I would take from those statistics is that needing a fresh download of Pypy is less common among 3.x users than among 2.7 users, who apparently needed to reinstall from the web at least a few times a day during 2016.
- gsnedders 10y ago
  It should be PyPI rather than PyPy in the parent, FWIW.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    Oops, mea culpa.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Given that there are only 7.5 billion humans on the planet, and that rather significantly fewer than 1 in 20 people are PyPy-using developers, perhaps those numbers should be taken with a grain of salt? Those are not downloads of PyPi, but of packages. It's not like "number of downloads == number of individual developers". Those are packages, including package updates. A single developer can download 50 deps across his codebase, and update them to later versions 2-3 times a year.
  - dbaupp 10y ago
    That response is talking about something else because your original comment accidentally said "PyPy", which is an implementation of Python, instead of "PyPI", the package repository.
  - orf 10y ago
    > A single developer can download 50 deps across his codebase, and update them to later versions 2-3 times a year. As if individual developers are the reason behind the bulk of the downloads. I wonder how many downloads Travis alone counts for? Your hate of Python 3 in every discussion about it is frankly baffling.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >As if individual developers are the reason behind the bulk of the downloads. I wonder how many downloads Travis alone counts for? Travis runs/tests user projects, so there's nothing about it that's especially partial to Python 2 over Python 3. >Your hate of Python 3 in every discussion about it is frankly baffling. Or, you know, my pragmatic assessment of its popularity. That you'd even use the word "hate" (when in fact, I like Python 3 over 2.7, even if its mostly tame updates over what 2.7 offers) shows that you're probably too partisan. I was enthused with Python 3 even when it was only a vision called Python3K back in 2000-ish. My personal preference has nothing to do with whether I see more people using it or not. The situation is not unlike the perennial "next year is when Linux dominates the desktop", which has been every year since 1999.
      - orf 10y ago
        > even if its mostly tame updates over what 2.7 offers > The situation is not unlike the perennial "next year is when Linux dominates the desktop", which has been every year since 1999. Your bias is showing, as it does in every comment section on this site regarding Python 3, as you make comment after comment about how inferior Python 3 is and how nobody is using it at all because your sample of 2 companies shows this and how it personally hurt your family or whatever. You don't stop. Either you hate it or you hate something else and use Python 3 as a vent.
- simula67 10y ago
  > The message I would take from those statistics is that needing a fresh download of Pypy is less common among 3.x users than among 2.7 users, who apparently needed to reinstall from the web at least a few times a day during 2016. Occam's Razor would suggest that there are fewer Python 3 users
lima 10y ago
The PyPy statistics aren't worth much since they're counting all sorts of automated downloads/dependencies/etc. That's why packages like supervisor and graphite - which aren't libraries - are among the top downloads.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >The PyPy statistics aren't worth much since they're counting all sorts of automated downloads/dependencies/etc. Those would exist for both 2.x and 3.x so it's not a differentiating factor.
kstrauser 10y ago
A huge confounding factor: newer Py3 codebases are more likely to be built with newer pipeline tooling like devpi (to cache PyPI downloads), wheel (to cache locally-built packages), and Docker (which caches all the things). Our legacy Python 2 build pipelines that we're actively moving off of hit PyPI far more often than our Py3 processes.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >A huge confounding factor: newer Py3 codebases are more likely to be built with newer pipeline tooling like devpi (to cache PyPI downloads), wheel (to cache locally-built packages), and Docker (which caches all the things). Maybe in your case, but from what I've seen, I seriously doubt use of Docker or Devpi makes any dent in newer Py3 codebase dependency downloads. Besides, tons of new codebases for greenfield projects are still done in 2.x Python. Not sure how it is in scientific computing area, but for enterprise/web apps, any company that has legacy 2.x code and libs in production (which is most of them) will continue to write new parts (including new projects) in 2.7 for compatibility with their Python production setup. 3.x is either from companies that didn't already have significant 2.x Python code in production (generally newer companies that for some reason went with Python instead of Node or Go that the cool kids use) or new programmers that just get started and start with 3.x.