4 ms·

There were a lot of people that left Python for other languages and never came back in the whole 2 to 3 debacle. It doesn't help that the early versions of Pyt

There were a lot of people that left Python for other languages and never came back in the whole 2 to 3 debacle. It doesn't help that the early versions of Python 3 were really opinionated and terrible. Python 3 only took off after they walked back a lot of the strong opinions that made them do a language break in the first place. Knowing what is known now about the transition, Python 2.8 would have been a much smarter idea.

kelipso 4y ago
Yeah I avoid python for any project I have control over.
saghm 4y ago
> It doesn't help that the early versions of Python 3 were really opinionated and terrible Isn't opinionated kind of Python's thing? I can understand "terrible" being bad, but like, "terrible and unopinionated" sounds bad as well. As someone who never really bought into "there should be only one way to do it", it's kind of hard not to be amused at the thought of the Python community suddenly realizing that maybe being too opinionated can sometimes be a bad thing.
- pantalaimon 4y ago
  Aren’t there at least three ways to format strings these days?
  - saghm 4y ago
    I never claimed that they were good at following this philosophy, just that they espoused it. Maybe they've let up because being opinionated stopped working.
TheRealPomax 4y ago
Absolutely, but it's not a static pool. A lot of new folks happily use 3.10 today that would have looked at 2.7 and gone "what century is this? No thanks", so even if on an individual level Python 3 might feel like it failed you, as a programming language it succeeded in changing with the times and staying not just relevant, but actually popular.
oconnor663 4y ago
That said, knowing what is known now, the transition also would've been smoother. Deprioritize "2to3", and require single-codebase-compatibility features from the start. Maybe even decouple the C API change release from the language change release.

kelipso 4y ago

Yeah I avoid python for any project I have control over.

saghm 4y ago

> It doesn't help that the early versions of Python 3 were really opinionated and terrible Isn't opinionated kind of Python's thing? I can understand "terrible" being bad, but like, "terrible and unopinionated" sounds bad as well. As someone who never really bought into "there should be only one way to do it", it's kind of hard not to be amused at the thought of the Python community suddenly realizing that maybe being too opinionated can sometimes be a bad thing.

pantalaimon 4y ago
Aren’t there at least three ways to format strings these days?
- saghm 4y ago
  I never claimed that they were good at following this philosophy, just that they espoused it. Maybe they've let up because being opinionated stopped working.

TheRealPomax 4y ago

Absolutely, but it's not a static pool. A lot of new folks happily use 3.10 today that would have looked at 2.7 and gone "what century is this? No thanks", so even if on an individual level Python 3 might feel like it failed you, as a programming language it succeeded in changing with the times and staying not just relevant, but actually popular.

oconnor663 4y ago

That said, knowing what is known now, the transition also would've been smoother. Deprioritize "2to3", and require single-codebase-compatibility features from the start. Maybe even decouple the C API change release from the language change release.