9 ms·

Which turned into a big internet fight, and he changed his mind. It's good to see people willing to change the way they do things, especially when that means p

by iodbh 10y ago

Which turned into a big internet fight, and he changed his mind. It's good to see people willing to change the way they do things, especially when that means publicly contradicting their former selves and with such an intense personality. It's oddly inspiring.

jhbadger 10y ago
Also, when he wrote it was kind of true. A lot of things hadn't been ported to Python 3 yet and using it was asking for pain. Now finally we are in the opposite situation where many things are ending support for Python 2 and the easier route is Python 3.
- thehardsphere 10y ago
  He wrote his rant a few months ago, which was well after every major library switched to Python 3. Dunno if you mean his previous book or the rant where he said, among other things, that Python 3 wasn't turing complete.
  - jhbadger 10y ago
    He updated it a few months ago, but he's had versions of this for quite some time. Yes, maintaining it in late 2016 is somewhat stubborn, but it made a lot of sense in the early years of Python 3.
    - thehardsphere 10y ago
      I have a difficult time believing that we're talking about the same rant, because the one I'm talking about would not have made any sense even in the early years of Python 3. Oh, I see it's been updated with a sober disclaimer now, where "In the previous version I trolled people" and "I even had a note after the gag saying it was a gag, but everyone is too stupid to read that note even when they do elaborate responses to my writing." I read his writing very carefully. This note didn't exist.
      - albedoa 10y ago
        > I read his writing very carefully. This note didn't exist. If only there were a machine with which we could go way back: https://web.archive.org/web/20161123042252/https://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/nopython3.html https://web.archive.org/web/20161123042252/https://learnpyth... Yes, that is kind of funny way of saying that there's no reason why Python 2 and Python 3 can't coexist other than the Python project's incompetence and arrogance. Obviously it's theoretically possible to run Python 2 in Python 3, but until they do it then they have decided to say that Python 3 cannot run one other Turing complete language so logically Python 3 is not Turing complete. I should also mention that as stupid as that sounds, actual Python project developers have told me this, so it's their position that their own language is not Turing complete.
        joshuamorton 10y ago
        If you check hacker news and reddit threads from the original posting, that note wasn't on the article when it was originally posted. It was only added later, but apparently still before anyone archived it. Edit: I'm mistaken, however I'll say what I said then again: The note does nothing to show that he actually understands the statements he's making. The note gets the definition of turing completeness wrong too.
        thehardsphere 10y ago
        If you have a link proving that, I would love to see it. I completely believe you that it was added later, as it's my own recollection that there was no note. But regardless, it doesn't change the fact that Zed wrote as if didn't know what he was talking about.
      - phaemon 10y ago
        You didn't read it carefully enough. It did exist. It read: "Yes, that is kind of funny way of saying that there's no reason why Python 2 and Python 3 can't coexist other than the Python project's incompetence and arrogance. Obviously it's theoretically possible to run Python 2 in Python 3, but until they do it then they have decided to say that Python 3 cannot run one other Turing complete language so logically Python 3 is not Turing complete. I should also mention that as stupid as that sounds, actual Python project developers have told me this, so it's their position that their own language is not Turing complete." See: http://web.archive.org/web/20161123042252/https://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/nopython3.html http://web.archive.org/web/20161123042252/https://learnpytho...
  - emondi 10y ago
    That was sarcasm against the impossibility of running python 2 code in the python 3 interpreter.
    - thehardsphere 10y ago
      I'm sure that defense is just as valid as "we were hacked and someone wrote all of those dumb things we said in exactly our writing style."
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
baldfat 10y ago
I think Zed was in the majority when it came to Py3. He kind of comes off as a jerk due to his personality, but I really like his approach and he always makes me think. I might not agree with him but he certainly is not boring. Looking at Pandas which is a R like library. Wes wrote his book in Py2 and did not have any desire for Py3. I moved from Python mostly to using R, Racket and Haxe for my other side projects. This infighting just left a bad taste in my mouth and started seeing greener pastures, which for once in my life were in fact greener. I still love Python but I don't use it much due to community drama.
- Analog24 10y ago
  Pandas is a python library but it is based on the concept of a Data Frame from R.
- kbd 10y ago
  > Wes wrote his book in Py2 and did not have any desire for Py3 I find it hard to believe you're citing a book that was published in 2012[1], when it made sense to still target Python 2, as relevant to today's argument. The new version is updated for Python 3.5[2]. [1] http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920023784.do http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920023784.do [2] https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/python-for-data/9781491957653/ https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/python-for-da...
  - sigzero 10y ago
    It's like there is no sense of time on the Internet! That was 4 years ago. People change their minds. That's a good thing. I agree with you totally.
    - baldfat 10y ago
      I am totally confused. Zed Shaw wrote in 2010 how he didn't like Python 3 and his book wasn't going to show Python 3. Then he edited the note in November 2016 restating his position again. Sometime between November 2016 to today he decided to release a Python 3 version. I mention that the original idea that Python 3 was not a good practice in 2010 and was the majority view and again in 2012 a major library was released with Python 2 as its main target with the majority of the community was fine with the Python 2 focus. Why am I making no sense time line? I like Zed Shaw as a member of the Python community and I was defending his stance on sticking with Python 2 (I personal supported Python 3 since announcement) So what is you agree and disagree with totally?????
crncosta 10y ago
Yes, it is a good thing!! I am glad he turn back from his previous decision. His book is nice.

by iodbh 10y ago

jhbadger 10y ago

Also, when he wrote it was kind of true. A lot of things hadn't been ported to Python 3 yet and using it was asking for pain. Now finally we are in the opposite situation where many things are ending support for Python 2 and the easier route is Python 3.

thehardsphere 10y ago
He wrote his rant a few months ago, which was well after every major library switched to Python 3. Dunno if you mean his previous book or the rant where he said, among other things, that Python 3 wasn't turing complete.
- jhbadger 10y ago
  He updated it a few months ago, but he's had versions of this for quite some time. Yes, maintaining it in late 2016 is somewhat stubborn, but it made a lot of sense in the early years of Python 3.
  - thehardsphere 10y ago
    I have a difficult time believing that we're talking about the same rant, because the one I'm talking about would not have made any sense even in the early years of Python 3. Oh, I see it's been updated with a sober disclaimer now, where "In the previous version I trolled people" and "I even had a note after the gag saying it was a gag, but everyone is too stupid to read that note even when they do elaborate responses to my writing." I read his writing very carefully. This note didn't exist.
    - albedoa 10y ago
      > I read his writing very carefully. This note didn't exist. If only there were a machine with which we could go way back: https://web.archive.org/web/20161123042252/https://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/nopython3.html https://web.archive.org/web/20161123042252/https://learnpyth... Yes, that is kind of funny way of saying that there's no reason why Python 2 and Python 3 can't coexist other than the Python project's incompetence and arrogance. Obviously it's theoretically possible to run Python 2 in Python 3, but until they do it then they have decided to say that Python 3 cannot run one other Turing complete language so logically Python 3 is not Turing complete. I should also mention that as stupid as that sounds, actual Python project developers have told me this, so it's their position that their own language is not Turing complete.
      - joshuamorton 10y ago
        If you check hacker news and reddit threads from the original posting, that note wasn't on the article when it was originally posted. It was only added later, but apparently still before anyone archived it. Edit: I'm mistaken, however I'll say what I said then again: The note does nothing to show that he actually understands the statements he's making. The note gets the definition of turing completeness wrong too.
        thehardsphere 10y ago
        If you have a link proving that, I would love to see it. I completely believe you that it was added later, as it's my own recollection that there was no note. But regardless, it doesn't change the fact that Zed wrote as if didn't know what he was talking about.
    - phaemon 10y ago
      You didn't read it carefully enough. It did exist. It read: "Yes, that is kind of funny way of saying that there's no reason why Python 2 and Python 3 can't coexist other than the Python project's incompetence and arrogance. Obviously it's theoretically possible to run Python 2 in Python 3, but until they do it then they have decided to say that Python 3 cannot run one other Turing complete language so logically Python 3 is not Turing complete. I should also mention that as stupid as that sounds, actual Python project developers have told me this, so it's their position that their own language is not Turing complete." See: http://web.archive.org/web/20161123042252/https://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/nopython3.html http://web.archive.org/web/20161123042252/https://learnpytho...
- emondi 10y ago
  That was sarcasm against the impossibility of running python 2 code in the python 3 interpreter.
  - thehardsphere 10y ago
    I'm sure that defense is just as valid as "we were hacked and someone wrote all of those dumb things we said in exactly our writing style."
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

baldfat 10y ago

I think Zed was in the majority when it came to Py3. He kind of comes off as a jerk due to his personality, but I really like his approach and he always makes me think. I might not agree with him but he certainly is not boring. Looking at Pandas which is a R like library. Wes wrote his book in Py2 and did not have any desire for Py3. I moved from Python mostly to using R, Racket and Haxe for my other side projects. This infighting just left a bad taste in my mouth and started seeing greener pastures, which for once in my life were in fact greener. I still love Python but I don't use it much due to community drama.

Analog24 10y ago
Pandas is a python library but it is based on the concept of a Data Frame from R.
kbd 10y ago
> Wes wrote his book in Py2 and did not have any desire for Py3 I find it hard to believe you're citing a book that was published in 2012[1], when it made sense to still target Python 2, as relevant to today's argument. The new version is updated for Python 3.5[2]. [1] http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920023784.do http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920023784.do [2] https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/python-for-data/9781491957653/ https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/python-for-da...
- sigzero 10y ago
  It's like there is no sense of time on the Internet! That was 4 years ago. People change their minds. That's a good thing. I agree with you totally.
  - baldfat 10y ago
    I am totally confused. Zed Shaw wrote in 2010 how he didn't like Python 3 and his book wasn't going to show Python 3. Then he edited the note in November 2016 restating his position again. Sometime between November 2016 to today he decided to release a Python 3 version. I mention that the original idea that Python 3 was not a good practice in 2010 and was the majority view and again in 2012 a major library was released with Python 2 as its main target with the majority of the community was fine with the Python 2 focus. Why am I making no sense time line? I like Zed Shaw as a member of the Python community and I was defending his stance on sticking with Python 2 (I personal supported Python 3 since announcement) So what is you agree and disagree with totally?????

crncosta 10y ago

Yes, it is a good thing!! I am glad he turn back from his previous decision. His book is nice.