3 ms·

Unicode alone is worth moving. I'm not particularly excited about a lot of other new features though. I don't see a real reason for type annotations from my p

Unicode alone is worth moving. I'm not particularly excited about a lot of other new features though. I don't see a real reason for type annotations from my perspective (if I wanted typed I'd use a typed language, if I wanted types indicated I'd indicate in the doc strings). Also f-strings which I haven't used it. They probably are better, but I'm barely getting used to `format` as opposed to `%s` (which admittedly `%s` does suck as I've said many time while counting items on the screen with a pencil).

DonaldPShimoda 7y ago
> I don't see a real reason for type annotations from my perspective (if I wanted typed I'd use a typed language, if I wanted types indicated I'd indicate in the doc strings). I definitely get this perspective, but I actually use type annotations a lot. I do the vast majority of my Python development in PyCharm, and using type annotations greatly facilitates auto-complete features. It also helps me do some very simple debugging while writing, as the IDE will tell me "Hey! I don't think these types match up!", which is often enough to save me the headache of debugging. Realistically, I just want Python but with a static type system. Which is why I'm implementing that as my own project haha. > Also f-strings which I haven't used it. Oh, dude, you gotta get on board with f-strings. They're soooo much simpler than the alternatives. Just skip learning `.format` and go straight to f-strings. I moved to f-strings when they first became available a few years ago and haven't looked back since. Dataclasses are also great, IMO. I prefer algebraic data types in functional languages like Haskell or OCaml, but I think Python's dataclasses are a "good enough" solution for me to use in the meantime. I often define very simple data types and hate the default `__repr__` implementations and writing naive `__init__` functions. Dataclasses make all this much faster and, I think, more readable.
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  Don't need to skip learning format. f-strings are a terser version of the .format call with a bit of superset features thrown in.
  - DonaldPShimoda 7y ago
    Ah, yes, I just meant they shouldn't focus on using `.format` and should instead just use f-strings directly. Didn't mean to imply that they were totally separate things, though that's definitely how my phrasing came across.
- speedplane 7y ago
  There's no question that Python 3 is an improvement, but the question is whether it's an improvement worth breaking every existing Python app. Especially when many of Python 3's features could easily have been backported to Python 2. Python 3 is effectively a new language. People will be running Python 2 for many more years to come.
BeetleB 7y ago
format has been around for a decade, and you're just getting used to it?
- mythrwy 7y ago
  Yep, the other way is easier (if, and only if it's short), it has simpler rules, less typing, and that's how I learned it and it's in muscle memory without having to stop and think or look at examples.

DonaldPShimoda 7y ago

> I don't see a real reason for type annotations from my perspective (if I wanted typed I'd use a typed language, if I wanted types indicated I'd indicate in the doc strings). I definitely get this perspective, but I actually use type annotations a lot. I do the vast majority of my Python development in PyCharm, and using type annotations greatly facilitates auto-complete features. It also helps me do some very simple debugging while writing, as the IDE will tell me "Hey! I don't think these types match up!", which is often enough to save me the headache of debugging. Realistically, I just want Python but with a static type system. Which is why I'm implementing that as my own project haha. > Also f-strings which I haven't used it. Oh, dude, you gotta get on board with f-strings. They're soooo much simpler than the alternatives. Just skip learning `.format` and go straight to f-strings. I moved to f-strings when they first became available a few years ago and haven't looked back since. Dataclasses are also great, IMO. I prefer algebraic data types in functional languages like Haskell or OCaml, but I think Python's dataclasses are a "good enough" solution for me to use in the meantime. I often define very simple data types and hate the default `__repr__` implementations and writing naive `__init__` functions. Dataclasses make all this much faster and, I think, more readable.

mixmastamyk 7y ago
Don't need to skip learning format. f-strings are a terser version of the .format call with a bit of superset features thrown in.
- DonaldPShimoda 7y ago
  Ah, yes, I just meant they shouldn't focus on using `.format` and should instead just use f-strings directly. Didn't mean to imply that they were totally separate things, though that's definitely how my phrasing came across.
speedplane 7y ago
There's no question that Python 3 is an improvement, but the question is whether it's an improvement worth breaking every existing Python app. Especially when many of Python 3's features could easily have been backported to Python 2. Python 3 is effectively a new language. People will be running Python 2 for many more years to come.

BeetleB 7y ago

format has been around for a decade, and you're just getting used to it?

mythrwy 7y ago
Yep, the other way is easier (if, and only if it's short), it has simpler rules, less typing, and that's how I learned it and it's in muscle memory without having to stop and think or look at examples.