5 ms·

I think they really need a killer feature in the 3.x branch to drive adoption. Any ideas?

by tocomment 15y ago

dmbaggett 15y ago
Source-code compatibility with Python 2.X?
- mattchaput 15y ago
  That would have been a nice driver, too bad they didn't do it.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
e1ven 15y ago
The non-fucked Unicode support is a good driver. Having ported programs that accept multiple types of strings from Py2 to Py3, Py3 is DRAMATICALLY easier to work with here. The biggest downside is that in order to upgrade from Py2->3, I needed to patch half a dozen different libs.
jemeshsu 15y ago
It's DJango.
sho_hn 15y ago
I don't think they do, myself. Adoption will and is happening gradually. More and more libs are being ported, and new Python coders often learn "Python 3 and how 2 differs" (rather than the other way around), e.g. thanks to Lutz' book. Eventually there just won't be any reasons left to use 2, and the usual reasons to use the latest version kick in - incremental improvements and continued maintenance. The migration was always expected to be a long-term thing, and so far has been pretty pain-free imho. But then I haven't written any code that doesn't run in 3.x since 2010, finding that 3 increasingly meets my deps and is more enjoyable and productive to code in, and when I do need to support 2 that the common subset of 2.7 and 3 is large enough to do many things.
- tocomment 15y ago
  What makes 3 more enjoyable/productive?
  - sho_hn 15y ago
    Unicode strings by default is a big one for me, but the little things sum up too: The removal of x*() functions in favor of making things that should return iterators just do so, removing old-style classes, various little consistency gains in standard object interfaces/protocols, lots of standard lib organization cleanups. I simply find things in Python 3 are the way I expect or want them to be more often than in 2, reducing the number of gotchas I need to keep track of. Heck, even print() is a solid improvement in my book (keyword args, hooray!) and I appreciate not needing the __future__ import for it. The list gets longer of course if you fairly add all the things eventually backported to 2.7, e.g. set literals and comprehensions. So, does 2.x work? Sure. Is 3 better? Yup. If I get to pick one, I pick 3.
rmc 15y ago
For me, unicode everywhere is cool. (Yes a PITA to work with, but it should be a PITA if you only assume ASCII)
- abecedarius 15y ago
  Going in, I expected it to not be a PITA to assume UTF-8 like in Plan 9. (I guess I was naive.)

I think they really need a killer feature in the 3.x branch to drive adoption. Any ideas?

dmbaggett 15y ago

Source-code compatibility with Python 2.X?

mattchaput 15y ago
That would have been a nice driver, too bad they didn't do it.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

e1ven 15y ago

The non-fucked Unicode support is a good driver. Having ported programs that accept multiple types of strings from Py2 to Py3, Py3 is DRAMATICALLY easier to work with here. The biggest downside is that in order to upgrade from Py2->3, I needed to patch half a dozen different libs.

jemeshsu 15y ago

It's DJango.

sho_hn 15y ago

I don't think they do, myself. Adoption will and is happening gradually. More and more libs are being ported, and new Python coders often learn "Python 3 and how 2 differs" (rather than the other way around), e.g. thanks to Lutz' book. Eventually there just won't be any reasons left to use 2, and the usual reasons to use the latest version kick in - incremental improvements and continued maintenance. The migration was always expected to be a long-term thing, and so far has been pretty pain-free imho. But then I haven't written any code that doesn't run in 3.x since 2010, finding that 3 increasingly meets my deps and is more enjoyable and productive to code in, and when I do need to support 2 that the common subset of 2.7 and 3 is large enough to do many things.

tocomment 15y ago
What makes 3 more enjoyable/productive?
- sho_hn 15y ago
  Unicode strings by default is a big one for me, but the little things sum up too: The removal of x*() functions in favor of making things that should return iterators just do so, removing old-style classes, various little consistency gains in standard object interfaces/protocols, lots of standard lib organization cleanups. I simply find things in Python 3 are the way I expect or want them to be more often than in 2, reducing the number of gotchas I need to keep track of. Heck, even print() is a solid improvement in my book (keyword args, hooray!) and I appreciate not needing the __future__ import for it. The list gets longer of course if you fairly add all the things eventually backported to 2.7, e.g. set literals and comprehensions. So, does 2.x work? Sure. Is 3 better? Yup. If I get to pick one, I pick 3.

rmc 15y ago

For me, unicode everywhere is cool. (Yes a PITA to work with, but it should be a PITA if you only assume ASCII)

abecedarius 15y ago
Going in, I expected it to not be a PITA to assume UTF-8 like in Plan 9. (I guess I was naive.)