5 ms·

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 m

by 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?????
BuckRogers 10y ago
Don't blame the community for that. Blame Guido and the core development team. The community at-large weren't rallying for breaking changes to the language. GvR wanted that, it's "his" language afterall. Of course some of the community are more conservative and were willing to more quickly fall in line to goosestep with the core team on Python3. So the tension stems from the Python3 folks having extreme disdain for all the Python2 users and codebases. I agree with you though, it's what got me looking towards other tech like Node, Go, Elixir. I can look past it all except for the fact they got 'unicode by default' wrong. They should simply do what Go does, everything is a bytestring with assumed encoding as UTF8. What they have today is ridiculous and needs changed before I could embrace Python3+.
- soperj 10y ago
  There were definitely people wanting unicode support, which was the breaking feature. They supported python 2 for years and year after the release of this, don't know how you can even mention the word goosestep in this context.
  - BuckRogers 10y ago
    I can't understand what's going on with the Python community for folks to even make statements like yours. It has to be an influx of new Python developers who started on 3. Python2 has unicode support. Python2 already had (better) async IO with Gevent (Tornado is also there). There's just nothing there with Python3 except what I can only describe as propaganda from the Python Software Foundation that has led to outright ignorance with many users. Some people wanted "unicode strings by default". Which Python3 does have, but they even got that wrong. The general consensus on how to handle this correctly is to make everything a bytestring and assume the encoding as being UTF8 by default. Then like Python2, it just works.
    - int_19h 10y ago
      > The general consensus on how to handle this correctly is to make everything a bytestring and assume the encoding as being UTF8 by default. Whose "general consensus"? It's certainly not the approach adopted by the vast majority of mainstream general-purpose programming languages out there.

by baldfat 10y ago

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?????

BuckRogers 10y ago

Don't blame the community for that. Blame Guido and the core development team. The community at-large weren't rallying for breaking changes to the language. GvR wanted that, it's "his" language afterall. Of course some of the community are more conservative and were willing to more quickly fall in line to goosestep with the core team on Python3. So the tension stems from the Python3 folks having extreme disdain for all the Python2 users and codebases. I agree with you though, it's what got me looking towards other tech like Node, Go, Elixir. I can look past it all except for the fact they got 'unicode by default' wrong. They should simply do what Go does, everything is a bytestring with assumed encoding as UTF8. What they have today is ridiculous and needs changed before I could embrace Python3+.

soperj 10y ago
There were definitely people wanting unicode support, which was the breaking feature. They supported python 2 for years and year after the release of this, don't know how you can even mention the word goosestep in this context.
- BuckRogers 10y ago
  I can't understand what's going on with the Python community for folks to even make statements like yours. It has to be an influx of new Python developers who started on 3. Python2 has unicode support. Python2 already had (better) async IO with Gevent (Tornado is also there). There's just nothing there with Python3 except what I can only describe as propaganda from the Python Software Foundation that has led to outright ignorance with many users. Some people wanted "unicode strings by default". Which Python3 does have, but they even got that wrong. The general consensus on how to handle this correctly is to make everything a bytestring and assume the encoding as being UTF8 by default. Then like Python2, it just works.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    > The general consensus on how to handle this correctly is to make everything a bytestring and assume the encoding as being UTF8 by default. Whose "general consensus"? It's certainly not the approach adopted by the vast majority of mainstream general-purpose programming languages out there.