5 ms·

It's too bad the python 3 transition was super short notice and no one had very much time to port their code at all...

RMPR 7y ago
12 years isn't exactly what I will call a super short notice... https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/ Edit: I can't find a way to delete this, but I don't think it's fair to be downvoted because I didn't get it was a sarcasm :(
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- hackingthenews 7y ago
  (I think it was sarcasm)
- tomwojcik 7y ago
  That was sarcasm
  - ehutch79 7y ago
    Can confirm
- oddlama 7y ago
  This is probably what ehutch79 was referring to.
hackingthenews 7y ago
I think we need to recognize that most people/companies who stick to python 2 doesn't do it because they are being stubborn. There is a real judgment call involved. It might look strange from the outside, but maybe it really is daunting to migrate some code-bases to python 3. (I got the sarcasm)
- acdha 7y ago
  In my experience, it's been a number of years since the judgement call was something other than “can we avoid paying for maintenance?”. Active projects had reasons 5+ years ago but by now it's really just a question of whether your team has a handle on technical debt management or is on an unsustainable feature treadmill.
- oliwarner 7y ago
  Daunting? Sure, but it's also daunting jumping from branch to branch trying to find somebody to support your rusty old Python 2 installations. Or deciding to actively run on unsupported Python. Modern software isn't fire and forget. Developers who have grown up around security exploits understand that. Higher management and FORTRAN77 programmers don't. To them it's developer busywork. The real judgement being made is money and resources.
  - TylerE 7y ago
    Rusty old python 2? [citation needed] I have encountered exactly zero bugs in Python 2 in production. Code doesn’t magically stop working
    - oliwarner 7y ago
      Leaving aside the bugfixes they've kept publishing for Python 2.7 (and it's rather massive standard library), how is your stack of ~100 external dependencies holding up? In my experience, most libraries are dropping Python 2 support too. Many dropped it a while ago. Your locally running, toy projects will continue to run under Python 2 indefinitely. Large [esp network-facing] projects will start to fall apart.
      - dfox 7y ago
        Many large Python 2 projects come from age when it was not exactly practical to have ~100 external dependencies and thus do not have that. It was the time when one really though about whether having external dependency for this particular shiny thing is worth the deployment hassle involved.
formercoder 7y ago
Firms should only embark on NPV positive projects. It’s possible that the efficient gains from the new python features outweigh the cost, but tough to prove.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
a1369209993 7y ago
> the python 3 transition was super short notice No it wasn't; it was the better part of a decade. Look, we all know Python 3 sucks (even if some poeple, unfortunately including the former Python maintainers, refuse to admit it), but this sort of blatant falsehood helps noone.
- ivalm 7y ago
  OP was sarcastic.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ehutch79 7y ago
  It was in fact sarcasm. Everyone had 10 years of warning.
- fastball 7y ago
  How does Python3 suck?
  - wolco 7y ago
    The language is fine the community is not the funnest comnunity to join.
    - fastball 7y ago
      Did that change going from 2 to 3?
opportune 7y ago
Good thing python didn't have a package management system where it was easy to take an external dependency on something that would then later be a monumental task to update. Or, even if you did do that, at least the automatic 2to3 upgrade tool was so well polished you wouldn't need to spend much time figuring out why it wasn't working.
dang 7y ago
"Don't be snarky." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

RMPR 7y ago

12 years isn't exactly what I will call a super short notice... https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/ Edit: I can't find a way to delete this, but I don't think it's fair to be downvoted because I didn't get it was a sarcasm :(

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hackingthenews 7y ago
(I think it was sarcasm)
tomwojcik 7y ago
That was sarcasm
- ehutch79 7y ago
  Can confirm
oddlama 7y ago
This is probably what ehutch79 was referring to.

hackingthenews 7y ago

I think we need to recognize that most people/companies who stick to python 2 doesn't do it because they are being stubborn. There is a real judgment call involved. It might look strange from the outside, but maybe it really is daunting to migrate some code-bases to python 3. (I got the sarcasm)

acdha 7y ago
In my experience, it's been a number of years since the judgement call was something other than “can we avoid paying for maintenance?”. Active projects had reasons 5+ years ago but by now it's really just a question of whether your team has a handle on technical debt management or is on an unsustainable feature treadmill.
oliwarner 7y ago
Daunting? Sure, but it's also daunting jumping from branch to branch trying to find somebody to support your rusty old Python 2 installations. Or deciding to actively run on unsupported Python. Modern software isn't fire and forget. Developers who have grown up around security exploits understand that. Higher management and FORTRAN77 programmers don't. To them it's developer busywork. The real judgement being made is money and resources.
- TylerE 7y ago
  Rusty old python 2? [citation needed] I have encountered exactly zero bugs in Python 2 in production. Code doesn’t magically stop working
  - oliwarner 7y ago
    Leaving aside the bugfixes they've kept publishing for Python 2.7 (and it's rather massive standard library), how is your stack of ~100 external dependencies holding up? In my experience, most libraries are dropping Python 2 support too. Many dropped it a while ago. Your locally running, toy projects will continue to run under Python 2 indefinitely. Large [esp network-facing] projects will start to fall apart.
    - dfox 7y ago
      Many large Python 2 projects come from age when it was not exactly practical to have ~100 external dependencies and thus do not have that. It was the time when one really though about whether having external dependency for this particular shiny thing is worth the deployment hassle involved.

formercoder 7y ago

Firms should only embark on NPV positive projects. It’s possible that the efficient gains from the new python features outweigh the cost, but tough to prove.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

a1369209993 7y ago

> the python 3 transition was super short notice No it wasn't; it was the better part of a decade. Look, we all know Python 3 sucks (even if some poeple, unfortunately including the former Python maintainers, refuse to admit it), but this sort of blatant falsehood helps noone.

ivalm 7y ago
OP was sarcastic.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ehutch79 7y ago
It was in fact sarcasm. Everyone had 10 years of warning.
fastball 7y ago
How does Python3 suck?
- wolco 7y ago
  The language is fine the community is not the funnest comnunity to join.
  - fastball 7y ago
    Did that change going from 2 to 3?

opportune 7y ago

Good thing python didn't have a package management system where it was easy to take an external dependency on something that would then later be a monumental task to update. Or, even if you did do that, at least the automatic 2to3 upgrade tool was so well polished you wouldn't need to spend much time figuring out why it wasn't working.

dang 7y ago

"Don't be snarky." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html