6 ms·

Well someone has to say it so I might as well: Is this going to be another Python 2 -> 3 cat herding exercise again? I suppose the need to run your app in "no-

Well someone has to say it so I might as well: Is this going to be another Python 2 -> 3 cat herding exercise again? I suppose the need to run your app in "no-GIL" mode is less than needing to jump from 2.7 to 3.

n2d4 3y ago
I didn't dive deep on this, but I assume that GIL mode can still run anything, including no-GIL code (it is one of their promises, at least). So, unlike 2->3, there is forwards-compatibility. It also seems like the latter isn't meant as a replacement (for the moment), but rather as an option.
- qbasic_forever 3y ago
  Presumably C extensions will have a different API name/ABI to prevent accidentally calling into GIL code when in non-GIL mode and vice/versa so that's going to complicate the compatibility story.
  - ggm 3y ago
    stat = rt_oldFunctionName(&newStateArg, oldarg[,...]) mostly (again from memory. I'd not live or die by this)
paulddraper 3y ago
As sibling comments says, GIL mode can run no-GIL code. Entirely different from 2->3. That analogy is so poorly applicable it's laughable.
- nequo 3y ago
  Without the last sentence, your comment would be better.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    It's not nice but it is true. "Dur dur this <insert anything here> is just like 2 -> 3." HN had always been susceptible to drive-by ignorant comments, but it's reaching new levels. There's literally nothing of substance to the suggestion. (And if you think there is, present an actual informed argument.)
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      It wasn't a suggestion, they were asking a question.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        Oh please. Even if we ignore that any question can have implications, they directly said "someone has to say it". They were explicitly suggesting something by asking that question.
        majewsky 3y ago
        They were suggesting that this is a question that is going to be on people's minds, which is very different from suggesting that the answer is yes.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        All I can say is that the phrasing looks quite biased to me and it would have been easy to not phrase it that way. Subtext is hard to prove, but that doesn't make it not real.
        insanitybit 3y ago
        It seems to have clearly been a case of "I remember 2 to 3, that was really bad. I imagine everyone else is wondering this - is this going to be another 2 to 3?"
pyuser583 3y ago
From the article: > We want to be very careful with backward compatibility. We do not want another Python 3 situation …

n2d4 3y ago

I didn't dive deep on this, but I assume that GIL mode can still run anything, including no-GIL code (it is one of their promises, at least). So, unlike 2->3, there is forwards-compatibility. It also seems like the latter isn't meant as a replacement (for the moment), but rather as an option.

qbasic_forever 3y ago
Presumably C extensions will have a different API name/ABI to prevent accidentally calling into GIL code when in non-GIL mode and vice/versa so that's going to complicate the compatibility story.
- ggm 3y ago
  stat = rt_oldFunctionName(&newStateArg, oldarg[,...]) mostly (again from memory. I'd not live or die by this)

paulddraper 3y ago

As sibling comments says, GIL mode can run no-GIL code. Entirely different from 2->3. That analogy is so poorly applicable it's laughable.

nequo 3y ago
Without the last sentence, your comment would be better.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  It's not nice but it is true. "Dur dur this <insert anything here> is just like 2 -> 3." HN had always been susceptible to drive-by ignorant comments, but it's reaching new levels. There's literally nothing of substance to the suggestion. (And if you think there is, present an actual informed argument.)
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    It wasn't a suggestion, they were asking a question.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Oh please. Even if we ignore that any question can have implications, they directly said "someone has to say it". They were explicitly suggesting something by asking that question.
      - majewsky 3y ago
        They were suggesting that this is a question that is going to be on people's minds, which is very different from suggesting that the answer is yes.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        All I can say is that the phrasing looks quite biased to me and it would have been easy to not phrase it that way. Subtext is hard to prove, but that doesn't make it not real.
        insanitybit 3y ago
        It seems to have clearly been a case of "I remember 2 to 3, that was really bad. I imagine everyone else is wondering this - is this going to be another 2 to 3?"

pyuser583 3y ago

From the article: > We want to be very careful with backward compatibility. We do not want another Python 3 situation …