4 ms·

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

by 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.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >You're literally bickering on about this in pretty much every Python-related item on HN. And others are bickering for the opposite opinion, so? Did someone die and gave you authority on what others should think about Python 2 vs 3 transition? >It is very hard not to notice your comments if one frequents this site. I guess tolerating the presence of a counter opinion is hard. That said, it's a open discussion, and the comments are not directed at you in any way. Maybe skip them if they upset you?
Al-Khwarizmi 10y ago
Python 3 is already a fork. The problem is that Python 2 cannot evolve freely alongside Python 3, because even if someone wants to maintain it and keep releasing versions, the Python Software Foundation won't let them use the name Python (there was a post some weeks ago about someone who actually tried). So there is no free competition between 2 and 3. 2 has been basically killed by a decision from above. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Python 3 hater. In fact, I have some projects in Python 3 and I would leave Python 2 if I could. But I, like many people, have to code stuff that has dependencies on Python 2, and the way they have handled the update bothers us for no good reason. In fact, the whole schism fiasco is making me use less Python and more Java, where my stone-age code still runs, lately.
- gtaylor 10y ago
  Python 3 is not a fork. It is a major release. A continuation of the same language, by the same people, with very little change in the core concepts. A major release with some backward incompatibilities doesn't constitute a fork. The previous version is being sunsetted, as is common for legacy software. By the time 2.7 is EOL'd, it will have enjoyed a decade of active development and maintenance. That's just one version of Python. If there were a compelling enough argument for a fork, it would happen and a new name would be chosen. But alas, it makes very little sense for the wider world. It's not difficult to write software that works with Python 2 and 3. It's just becoming less and less worth it, as evident by announcements like this Django 2.0 one. The scales have tipped towards Python 3.
- slig 10y ago
  > the Python Software Foundation won't let them use the name Python That's how trademarks are supposed to work; they must go after anyone using without permission or they lose it.
  - true_religion 10y ago
    Or they could give permission.
    - 10y ago

by gtaylor 10y ago

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.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >You're literally bickering on about this in pretty much every Python-related item on HN. And others are bickering for the opposite opinion, so? Did someone die and gave you authority on what others should think about Python 2 vs 3 transition? >It is very hard not to notice your comments if one frequents this site. I guess tolerating the presence of a counter opinion is hard. That said, it's a open discussion, and the comments are not directed at you in any way. Maybe skip them if they upset you?

Al-Khwarizmi 10y ago

Python 3 is already a fork. The problem is that Python 2 cannot evolve freely alongside Python 3, because even if someone wants to maintain it and keep releasing versions, the Python Software Foundation won't let them use the name Python (there was a post some weeks ago about someone who actually tried). So there is no free competition between 2 and 3. 2 has been basically killed by a decision from above. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Python 3 hater. In fact, I have some projects in Python 3 and I would leave Python 2 if I could. But I, like many people, have to code stuff that has dependencies on Python 2, and the way they have handled the update bothers us for no good reason. In fact, the whole schism fiasco is making me use less Python and more Java, where my stone-age code still runs, lately.

gtaylor 10y ago
Python 3 is not a fork. It is a major release. A continuation of the same language, by the same people, with very little change in the core concepts. A major release with some backward incompatibilities doesn't constitute a fork. The previous version is being sunsetted, as is common for legacy software. By the time 2.7 is EOL'd, it will have enjoyed a decade of active development and maintenance. That's just one version of Python. If there were a compelling enough argument for a fork, it would happen and a new name would be chosen. But alas, it makes very little sense for the wider world. It's not difficult to write software that works with Python 2 and 3. It's just becoming less and less worth it, as evident by announcements like this Django 2.0 one. The scales have tipped towards Python 3.
slig 10y ago
> the Python Software Foundation won't let them use the name Python That's how trademarks are supposed to work; they must go after anyone using without permission or they lose it.
- true_religion 10y ago
  Or they could give permission.
  - 10y ago