8 ms·

Please, don't tell me how "Python3 is good" - I know everything. I just still don't approve the way the transition was made - if we got to Python 3 through prog

Please, don't tell me how "Python3 is good" - I know everything. I just still don't approve the way the transition was made - if we got to Python 3 through progressive deprecation and evolution via python 2.8 and 2.9, we wouldn't be where we are now.

scrollaway 10y ago
> if we got to Python 3 through progressive deprecation and evolution via python 2.8 and 2.9, we wouldn't be where we are now. You mean exactly like Django's progressive deprecation and evolution that you're complaining about in your parent post?
- coldtea 10y ago
  No, he means language level progressive deprecation and evolution, as opposed to an abrupt jump to a changed 3 from 2.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    The Django project has added Python 3 compatibility in Django 1.5 as experimental. It remained experimental in 1.6. It became supported in 1.7. They announced around that time that Django 2.0 would only support Python 3. Then, they released a first 3.x compatible LTS with Django 1.8. Then they released 1.9, compatible with 3.4 and 3.5. They then release 1.10. And they are releasing 1.11 soon as an LTS, which they previously announced would be the last in the 1.x branch and the last to support Python 2. It will be supported for AT LEAST THREE YEARS after its released. Good lord. If the deprecation and evolution gets any more progressive, it'll compete with darwinism. And yet, alanfranzoni complains about it. And YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT IT elsewhere in the thread, saying they're "screwing their userbase" and "leaving their users in the dust". Don't you think you're being a little fricking entitled? This is an open source project and they're doing quite literally everything right.
    - throwawayish 10y ago
      I couldn't agree more. This transition and their release management in general has been handled excellently for years. Anyone complaining here is quite literally whining.
  - rbanffy 10y ago
    You talk as if Python 3 were a dialect of Lisp. It's still Python, looks like Python and feels like Python. In fact, I think most of my Python 3 code runs on Python 2.
    - billoday 10y ago
      You talk as if the switch doesn't look like a bunch of arbitrary decisions made on the appearance of purity. If more of an attempt had been made a maintaining compatibility, there wouldn't be nearly as much fight. Python 3 becomes a bit uncanny valley for me when I try to code in it and I tend to use a different language as there less of an internal code switch, especially as I still have to maintain large numbers of python2 code.
      - rbanffy 10y ago
        They got rid of a lot of cruft that's with us since 1.5.x. Python 3 is a great language, much better than Python 2 when you explore the differences.
        billoday 10y ago
        The truth is, it's Python. I'm not looking for a great language, I'm looking for language that'll help me get work done... quickly and not give me a migraine if I have to come back to it (Perl). The 3 changes are just big enough to catch me (and every other Python programmer I've worked with) so that I can't just program, which tends to push me towards keeping it in 2.7 or switching to another language, where the similarities don't exist to pull me into bad habits. The whole mess really sours me on the language that made me love programming again.
Al-Khwarizmi 10y ago
Or if they had called Python 3 a different name, and let both branches evolve freely and compete.
- gtaylor 10y ago
  This sounds like a fork. Nothing need stop someone from forking and maintaining CPython 2.x. Open source is a do-ocracy. But I doubt it'd be worth it. Python 3 is getting great traction and is a fundamentally better language.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >This sounds like a fork. Python 3 is already a fork.
    - gtaylor 10y ago
      It's a major release.
    - throwawayish 10y ago
      Pretty much the only people that are working towards splitting the community are people like you, who spread FUD and sprinkle snide, bitter and wrong remarks across threads.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        Notice how I made a pragmatic observation (that it's already a fork), which one might agree or disagree with, and you went for name-calling about FUD, snide, bitter, "people like you", etc.
        throwawayish 10y ago
        That's, like I said, my general observation from reading like a dozen comments from you just on this item. You're literally bickering on about this in pretty much every Python-related item on HN. It is very hard not to notice your comments if one frequents this site. I stand by my comment above.
kamyarg 10y ago
Making the transition more "progressive" would just decrease the incentive of developers and companies to move even more. Ultimately, they are the ones who maintain, care for Python and have grown the community to its current size. I totally respect their decision. Even if py3 was complete useless, I would just stop using python, not complain about how they are not doing things the way I like it.
viraptor 10y ago
What would you do in 2.8, 2.9 that 2.6, 2.7 didn't achieve? 3.0 was released almost at the same time as 2.6, and together with 2.7 they got a lot of backported 3.x functionality. Sounds like what you're asking for.
yen223 10y ago
If anything, the transition was too progressive. The Python ecosystem would have been better served if they killed support for Python 2 much earlier, so that we can avoid wasting time on this tired debate, and more time writing useful code

scrollaway 10y ago

> if we got to Python 3 through progressive deprecation and evolution via python 2.8 and 2.9, we wouldn't be where we are now. You mean exactly like Django's progressive deprecation and evolution that you're complaining about in your parent post?

coldtea 10y ago
No, he means language level progressive deprecation and evolution, as opposed to an abrupt jump to a changed 3 from 2.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  The Django project has added Python 3 compatibility in Django 1.5 as experimental. It remained experimental in 1.6. It became supported in 1.7. They announced around that time that Django 2.0 would only support Python 3. Then, they released a first 3.x compatible LTS with Django 1.8. Then they released 1.9, compatible with 3.4 and 3.5. They then release 1.10. And they are releasing 1.11 soon as an LTS, which they previously announced would be the last in the 1.x branch and the last to support Python 2. It will be supported for AT LEAST THREE YEARS after its released. Good lord. If the deprecation and evolution gets any more progressive, it'll compete with darwinism. And yet, alanfranzoni complains about it. And YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT IT elsewhere in the thread, saying they're "screwing their userbase" and "leaving their users in the dust". Don't you think you're being a little fricking entitled? This is an open source project and they're doing quite literally everything right.
  - throwawayish 10y ago
    I couldn't agree more. This transition and their release management in general has been handled excellently for years. Anyone complaining here is quite literally whining.
- rbanffy 10y ago
  You talk as if Python 3 were a dialect of Lisp. It's still Python, looks like Python and feels like Python. In fact, I think most of my Python 3 code runs on Python 2.
  - billoday 10y ago
    You talk as if the switch doesn't look like a bunch of arbitrary decisions made on the appearance of purity. If more of an attempt had been made a maintaining compatibility, there wouldn't be nearly as much fight. Python 3 becomes a bit uncanny valley for me when I try to code in it and I tend to use a different language as there less of an internal code switch, especially as I still have to maintain large numbers of python2 code.
    - rbanffy 10y ago
      They got rid of a lot of cruft that's with us since 1.5.x. Python 3 is a great language, much better than Python 2 when you explore the differences.
      - billoday 10y ago
        The truth is, it's Python. I'm not looking for a great language, I'm looking for language that'll help me get work done... quickly and not give me a migraine if I have to come back to it (Perl). The 3 changes are just big enough to catch me (and every other Python programmer I've worked with) so that I can't just program, which tends to push me towards keeping it in 2.7 or switching to another language, where the similarities don't exist to pull me into bad habits. The whole mess really sours me on the language that made me love programming again.

Al-Khwarizmi 10y ago

Or if they had called Python 3 a different name, and let both branches evolve freely and compete.

gtaylor 10y ago
This sounds like a fork. Nothing need stop someone from forking and maintaining CPython 2.x. Open source is a do-ocracy. But I doubt it'd be worth it. Python 3 is getting great traction and is a fundamentally better language.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >This sounds like a fork. Python 3 is already a fork.
  - gtaylor 10y ago
    It's a major release.
  - throwawayish 10y ago
    Pretty much the only people that are working towards splitting the community are people like you, who spread FUD and sprinkle snide, bitter and wrong remarks across threads.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      Notice how I made a pragmatic observation (that it's already a fork), which one might agree or disagree with, and you went for name-calling about FUD, snide, bitter, "people like you", etc.
      - throwawayish 10y ago
        That's, like I said, my general observation from reading like a dozen comments from you just on this item. You're literally bickering on about this in pretty much every Python-related item on HN. It is very hard not to notice your comments if one frequents this site. I stand by my comment above.

kamyarg 10y ago

Making the transition more "progressive" would just decrease the incentive of developers and companies to move even more. Ultimately, they are the ones who maintain, care for Python and have grown the community to its current size. I totally respect their decision. Even if py3 was complete useless, I would just stop using python, not complain about how they are not doing things the way I like it.

viraptor 10y ago

What would you do in 2.8, 2.9 that 2.6, 2.7 didn't achieve? 3.0 was released almost at the same time as 2.6, and together with 2.7 they got a lot of backported 3.x functionality. Sounds like what you're asking for.

yen223 10y ago

If anything, the transition was too progressive. The Python ecosystem would have been better served if they killed support for Python 2 much earlier, so that we can avoid wasting time on this tired debate, and more time writing useful code