4 ms·

The criticism is that the Python team will deprecate and remove functionality as it's not needed? Boy, you're gonna hate PEP-594. Also Python 2->3 transition w

by smcl 3y ago

The criticism is that the Python team will deprecate and remove functionality as it's not needed? Boy, you're gonna hate PEP-594. Also Python 2->3 transition was a one-time thing that developers had over a decade to perform, it may have been painful for some but saying it's a random thing that happens "every few years" is a bit dishonest.

fullspectrumdev 3y ago
PEP-594 is actually causing me some anxiety - I deal with a good amount of code that uses some of those “batteries to be removed”. Some of them (telnetlib) I can vendor in, but I wonder how many people who use them will be caught pantsless?
- smcl 3y ago
  My feeling is that if you're the sort of org who will update the Python version you use, you're going to be switched-on enough to handle this somehow. From the sounds of things it it's a bit of an inconvenience for you that you'd understandably rather not have, but you have it under control. I don't personally use any of these "dead" batteries though, so I can't speak with any authority on the matter
stonogo 3y ago
Are you saying there will never be a Python 4, or are you saying that the 2->3 transition was so badly flubbed nobody will make that mistake again?
- smcl 3y ago
  Well yeah given that some people are still talking about issues from a software release that happened 15 years ago, it would be incredibly unlikely that they'd want to repeat that. What has me a little bit confused is that we're in a thread talking about how Python somehow "flubbed" after 2->3, despite an explosion in popularity during that period culminating in it being arguably the most popular programming language around. And the counterexample is supposed to be Perl, a language which I have enjoyed using but which has fallen off a cliff during the same period, and which has had an even more enormous and self-defeating flub (Perl 6 aka "Raku"). As I said, I understand if Python 3.x was painful for some organizations. I think the suggestion that it was a failure and that Perl showed us the right way to go is a pretty silly one though.
  - lizmat 3y ago
    Saying that the Raku Programming Language is a flub, indicates to me that you do not know it at all. Getting Unicode support right by itself should be an indication that it is better than Python 3 in that respect. And let's not start about the fact that the Raku Programming Language does not have a GIL, allowing true multi-processing features and event handling. https://raku.org https://raku.org
    - smcl 3y ago
      In terms of execution the development and release of Perl 6 was undeniably a flub. What eventually got released was ultimately a fine language, but it was years late, largely incompatible with existing Perl code (hence the rename) and a sizeable portion of what was left of the Perl community didn't adopt it and stayed on Perl 5.x. Sizeable enough that there are now some rumblings around tidying 5.x up a bit and releasing it as Perl 7.

by smcl 3y ago

fullspectrumdev 3y ago

PEP-594 is actually causing me some anxiety - I deal with a good amount of code that uses some of those “batteries to be removed”. Some of them (telnetlib) I can vendor in, but I wonder how many people who use them will be caught pantsless?

smcl 3y ago
My feeling is that if you're the sort of org who will update the Python version you use, you're going to be switched-on enough to handle this somehow. From the sounds of things it it's a bit of an inconvenience for you that you'd understandably rather not have, but you have it under control. I don't personally use any of these "dead" batteries though, so I can't speak with any authority on the matter

stonogo 3y ago

Are you saying there will never be a Python 4, or are you saying that the 2->3 transition was so badly flubbed nobody will make that mistake again?

smcl 3y ago
Well yeah given that some people are still talking about issues from a software release that happened 15 years ago, it would be incredibly unlikely that they'd want to repeat that. What has me a little bit confused is that we're in a thread talking about how Python somehow "flubbed" after 2->3, despite an explosion in popularity during that period culminating in it being arguably the most popular programming language around. And the counterexample is supposed to be Perl, a language which I have enjoyed using but which has fallen off a cliff during the same period, and which has had an even more enormous and self-defeating flub (Perl 6 aka "Raku"). As I said, I understand if Python 3.x was painful for some organizations. I think the suggestion that it was a failure and that Perl showed us the right way to go is a pretty silly one though.
- lizmat 3y ago
  Saying that the Raku Programming Language is a flub, indicates to me that you do not know it at all. Getting Unicode support right by itself should be an indication that it is better than Python 3 in that respect. And let's not start about the fact that the Raku Programming Language does not have a GIL, allowing true multi-processing features and event handling. https://raku.org https://raku.org
  - smcl 3y ago
    In terms of execution the development and release of Perl 6 was undeniably a flub. What eventually got released was ultimately a fine language, but it was years late, largely incompatible with existing Perl code (hence the rename) and a sizeable portion of what was left of the Perl community didn't adopt it and stayed on Perl 5.x. Sizeable enough that there are now some rumblings around tidying 5.x up a bit and releasing it as Perl 7.