6 ms·

I can't help but see this balkanization of Python as a sign that the core language is falling apart. How many interpreters are there now? And how many of them

by Pxtl 10y ago

I can't help but see this balkanization of Python as a sign that the core language is falling apart. How many interpreters are there now? And how many of them have even close to 100% compatibility with Python 2.7 or 3.N? Guido has lost control of the language, but has he's still officially the BDFL there's no real standardization body. His stubborn view on functional mechanisms have held the language back syntactically, breaking BC with Python 3 without fixing the language's fundamental problems... it really feels like Python is lost in the desert. Which doesn't mean the language is dead, but it's rudderless. I think we were all hopeful when Guido joined Google that we'd see real direction for Python, but that obviously didn't happen. Not that Python is dead, obviously - still lots of great projects are written in Python. But I don't like the language's future.

skybrian 10y ago
It's not that different from what's happening with Java (via Android) or Go (with GopherJS, for example), or even C (many, many extensions). A popular language attracts implementors, even if they don't implement the whole thing on their target platform.
viraptor 10y ago
Why do you think multiple implementations are a problem? We've got multiple ruby runtimes, multiple basics, multiple JavaScript engines, multiple C compilers, etc. None of those languages are falling apart because of it.
BuckRogers 10y ago
GVR, the PSF and the core dev team overestimated their influence. They still truly believe the majority will come around to Python3. I agree with your sentiments and balkanization is the right word. Guido won't even read these comments. He thinks it's all some unjust slander and nonsense that will be forgotten in 3 years. :) It is a good time to jump off the Python train in general, and I say that as someone invested in Python who loves it. If possible I'd recommend people reach for Go or Elixir depending on their needs or requirements. I will admit I'm a little shocked how much of a failure Python3 adoption has been. I think if it had been Grumpy from the start it would've been a huge success. This is exactly what people want and Google should be commended for sharing this. Here's to hoping Grumpy takes on a life of its own and is the new de facto Python.
- robohamburger 10y ago
  Both my workplace and the one big open source project I use homeassistant all use python 3. Do you have any data to backup python 3 adoption being a failure? I know it was certainly painful for many years. As a python 3 user everything seems fine on my end. Though 3 has its own new warts. They are smaller and more forgivable warts for now but its probably not a good sign. I do agree the direction python is heading is not very interesting anymore but that doesn't mean its dead or useless now.
  - dx034 10y ago
    We try to use Python 3 at work but have to run Python 2 as well because there are still packages that weren't upgraded and it's too much working re-writing them all for no direct benefit. We also have third party vendors that only support Python 3 in experimental versions, and there not even recent versions (Bloomberg is a great example). I really like Python3 features, but the pain of using them drives me towards using other languages. I hope Julia will be stable and mature enough soon so that I can dump Python all together. I really like Julia, but currently the changes in the languages are too fast and there are constantly incompatibilities with packages that don't update fast enough. But I'm reasonably certain that this will be fixed once they reach 1.0. I'm sure Python is far from dead, but can imagine that Julia has the potential to kill it in many domains.
    - whyrt12 10y ago
      Do you do data science?
      - dx034 10y ago
        Yes, mostly for finance.
        statsmatscats 10y ago
        What python 3 features are painful and why?
hellofunk 10y ago
Actually, historical evidence suggests the opposite of your argument: multiple implementations of a language typically mean it is succeeding, not failing.
- Volt 10y ago
  Really then, it suggests that Python 2 is succeeding, not Python 3.
porker 10y ago
> His stubborn view on functional mechanisms Reference, for a non-Python dev who hasn't kept up with it?
- teaearlgraycold 10y ago
  Guido has said that he wishes Python didn't have lambdas. Also, map and reduce were removed from the standard global namespace and into the functools module.
  - kevinmgranger 10y ago
    Reduce was, map wasn't. https://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#map https://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#map

by Pxtl 10y ago

skybrian 10y ago

It's not that different from what's happening with Java (via Android) or Go (with GopherJS, for example), or even C (many, many extensions). A popular language attracts implementors, even if they don't implement the whole thing on their target platform.

viraptor 10y ago

Why do you think multiple implementations are a problem? We've got multiple ruby runtimes, multiple basics, multiple JavaScript engines, multiple C compilers, etc. None of those languages are falling apart because of it.

BuckRogers 10y ago

GVR, the PSF and the core dev team overestimated their influence. They still truly believe the majority will come around to Python3. I agree with your sentiments and balkanization is the right word. Guido won't even read these comments. He thinks it's all some unjust slander and nonsense that will be forgotten in 3 years. :) It is a good time to jump off the Python train in general, and I say that as someone invested in Python who loves it. If possible I'd recommend people reach for Go or Elixir depending on their needs or requirements. I will admit I'm a little shocked how much of a failure Python3 adoption has been. I think if it had been Grumpy from the start it would've been a huge success. This is exactly what people want and Google should be commended for sharing this. Here's to hoping Grumpy takes on a life of its own and is the new de facto Python.

robohamburger 10y ago
Both my workplace and the one big open source project I use homeassistant all use python 3. Do you have any data to backup python 3 adoption being a failure? I know it was certainly painful for many years. As a python 3 user everything seems fine on my end. Though 3 has its own new warts. They are smaller and more forgivable warts for now but its probably not a good sign. I do agree the direction python is heading is not very interesting anymore but that doesn't mean its dead or useless now.
- dx034 10y ago
  We try to use Python 3 at work but have to run Python 2 as well because there are still packages that weren't upgraded and it's too much working re-writing them all for no direct benefit. We also have third party vendors that only support Python 3 in experimental versions, and there not even recent versions (Bloomberg is a great example). I really like Python3 features, but the pain of using them drives me towards using other languages. I hope Julia will be stable and mature enough soon so that I can dump Python all together. I really like Julia, but currently the changes in the languages are too fast and there are constantly incompatibilities with packages that don't update fast enough. But I'm reasonably certain that this will be fixed once they reach 1.0. I'm sure Python is far from dead, but can imagine that Julia has the potential to kill it in many domains.
  - whyrt12 10y ago
    Do you do data science?
    - dx034 10y ago
      Yes, mostly for finance.
      - statsmatscats 10y ago
        What python 3 features are painful and why?

hellofunk 10y ago

Actually, historical evidence suggests the opposite of your argument: multiple implementations of a language typically mean it is succeeding, not failing.

Volt 10y ago
Really then, it suggests that Python 2 is succeeding, not Python 3.

porker 10y ago

> His stubborn view on functional mechanisms Reference, for a non-Python dev who hasn't kept up with it?

teaearlgraycold 10y ago
Guido has said that he wishes Python didn't have lambdas. Also, map and reduce were removed from the standard global namespace and into the functools module.
- kevinmgranger 10y ago
  Reduce was, map wasn't. https://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#map https://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#map