5 ms·

I like Python, but keeping both 2 and 3 alive for so long has caused problems that make it hard to justify for serious projects. What will your boss decide whe

by smoyer 14y ago

I like Python, but keeping both 2 and 3 alive for so long has caused problems that make it hard to justify for serious projects. What will your boss decide when half his developers say that the two branch is right for a task and half say the three branch should be used? He'll pick another language. I'm not sure I'm willing to trust Ubuntu to decide this for me ... they also thought Unity was in my best interest, and foisted the Amazon store upon my desktop. Good luck Ubuntu ... I'm outta here.

ed_blackburn 14y ago
I've worked in environments where classic ASP, .NET 1.0, .NET 3.5 and 4.0 are all in production, some on the same server. I imagine there are similar tales regarding production environments for Java and Ruby etc. If you cannot run different versions simultaneously you have a problem. Thankfully you can.
andrewcooke 14y ago
ubuntu isn't deciding anything for you. both are available as packages. and the decision to introduce python 3 wasn't made by them anyway. for new projects where i control deployment i use python 3 (these days, the support is there - in fact in at least one case i am using a python 3 only lib). for maintenance or projects where the client has existing systems, i use whatever is most appropriate. i am a professional. i get the job done. what more is there to say? oh, yeah, running round throwing a hissy fit for internet points.
pcx66 14y ago
I think the way the Python community handled this change is really mature compared to several other communities who've been through such change. They've done great work in making sure one single codebase can support 2.6, 2.7 and 3.2/3, Django does this. Teams using Python to develop, in the present state, mostly base their decisions to chose py2 or py3 based on the maturity of the libraries (py3 ones) they are gonna use. Ubuntu devs are using good judgment here, they are first moving code they use for the OS from 2 to 3 and switch the default python package version. But py2 should be available to any package which specifies it as a dependency. This should be nearly invisible to a normal user. This also gives the much needed push for Py3 adoption.
chrismorgan 14y ago
Having Python 3 installed does not mean that you cannot install and use Python 2 if you wish to; if you upgrade to 13.04, your copy of Python 2.7 will remain installed, and for other users it's still in the package repositories (if it's not already installed—I'm not certain). But pushing Python 3 forwards makes sense. It is a better language and is the way forward. Having a major operating system promoting it as the primary distribution will be very helpful in continuing Python 3 adoption. I don't agree with the rest of that paragraph, either. Then to your second paragraph—I actively enjoy using Unity. And as for the Amazon things, I see the direction they're headed in and approve of it, though the Amazon part alone is of no use to me. Canonical is making good things; sure, in the meantime there have been some things which haven't worked quite so well (e.g. I didn't find Unity usable for the first two releases) but their direction is solid, in my opinion.
zanny 14y ago
Arch has python2 and python3 with the /usr/bin/python symlinked to python3. Anything that depends on 2 uses, well, 2. It is the bane of backwards compatibility breakage in language semantics. I sometimes think maybe Python3 should have been another language, but it is understandable when there is so little syntactic breakage between the two you want to try to tie them together than diverge on the unicode issue.
- lucian1900 14y ago
  Arch made the mistake of symlinking python to python3, that's all.
  - alexchamberlain 14y ago
    Has anyone that uses Arch called it a mistake?
    - fijal 14y ago
      Yes, tons and tons of confused people popped in on all python IRC channels. Arch devs seem to think their users know everything, but there is enough evidence that not every single arch user reads all the details.
      - alexchamberlain 14y ago
        If you don't know enough to maintain your system, you shouldn't use Arch...
      - burntsushi 14y ago
        It is intentional. From the Archwiki [1]: > Arch Linux targets and accommodates competent GNU/Linux users by giving them complete control and responsibility over the system. [1] - https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way
        14y ago
mseebach 14y ago
Python 2 and 3 are in most practical senses two very closely related, but different, languages. So your scenario is not very different from the two groups of developers suggesting Python and Ruby. By the way, assuming either language satisfies the external requirements for the project, any half-way competent boss would say "Figure it out. Bring me your decision by the end of the day(/week/whatever). KTHXBYE."
- masklinn 14y ago
  > Python 2 and 3 are in most practical senses two very closely related, but different, languages. They're so closely related you can write code compatible with both (and that's the path many — if not most — libraries are taking)
alexchamberlain 14y ago
I hope this is some sort of development/project manager rather than a business manager, otherwise they shouldn't be choosing the language at all!
xradionut 14y ago
"I like Python, but keeping both 2 and 3 alive for so long has caused problems that make it hard to justify for serious projects." Sounds like a strawman arguement to me. People in the community are aware of the different versions of Python and know how to deal with it. This "issue" hasn't affected Google, NASA or the millions of developers/users that utilize Python to the extent that they are in crisis mode. You can run multiple versions of Python on the same system, there are utilities that make this manageable. What other language is "your" boss going to pick that you can't find issues with? Does he actually understand the technical details and history of said language? You can find all sorts of issues with any programming language, all of them are "Hopper complete."
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
njharman 14y ago
Get a different boss, that one sucks.

by smoyer 14y ago

ed_blackburn 14y ago

I've worked in environments where classic ASP, .NET 1.0, .NET 3.5 and 4.0 are all in production, some on the same server. I imagine there are similar tales regarding production environments for Java and Ruby etc. If you cannot run different versions simultaneously you have a problem. Thankfully you can.

andrewcooke 14y ago

ubuntu isn't deciding anything for you. both are available as packages. and the decision to introduce python 3 wasn't made by them anyway. for new projects where i control deployment i use python 3 (these days, the support is there - in fact in at least one case i am using a python 3 only lib). for maintenance or projects where the client has existing systems, i use whatever is most appropriate. i am a professional. i get the job done. what more is there to say? oh, yeah, running round throwing a hissy fit for internet points.

pcx66 14y ago

I think the way the Python community handled this change is really mature compared to several other communities who've been through such change. They've done great work in making sure one single codebase can support 2.6, 2.7 and 3.2/3, Django does this. Teams using Python to develop, in the present state, mostly base their decisions to chose py2 or py3 based on the maturity of the libraries (py3 ones) they are gonna use. Ubuntu devs are using good judgment here, they are first moving code they use for the OS from 2 to 3 and switch the default python package version. But py2 should be available to any package which specifies it as a dependency. This should be nearly invisible to a normal user. This also gives the much needed push for Py3 adoption.

chrismorgan 14y ago

Having Python 3 installed does not mean that you cannot install and use Python 2 if you wish to; if you upgrade to 13.04, your copy of Python 2.7 will remain installed, and for other users it's still in the package repositories (if it's not already installed—I'm not certain). But pushing Python 3 forwards makes sense. It is a better language and is the way forward. Having a major operating system promoting it as the primary distribution will be very helpful in continuing Python 3 adoption. I don't agree with the rest of that paragraph, either. Then to your second paragraph—I actively enjoy using Unity. And as for the Amazon things, I see the direction they're headed in and approve of it, though the Amazon part alone is of no use to me. Canonical is making good things; sure, in the meantime there have been some things which haven't worked quite so well (e.g. I didn't find Unity usable for the first two releases) but their direction is solid, in my opinion.

zanny 14y ago

Arch has python2 and python3 with the /usr/bin/python symlinked to python3. Anything that depends on 2 uses, well, 2. It is the bane of backwards compatibility breakage in language semantics. I sometimes think maybe Python3 should have been another language, but it is understandable when there is so little syntactic breakage between the two you want to try to tie them together than diverge on the unicode issue.

lucian1900 14y ago
Arch made the mistake of symlinking python to python3, that's all.
- alexchamberlain 14y ago
  Has anyone that uses Arch called it a mistake?
  - fijal 14y ago
    Yes, tons and tons of confused people popped in on all python IRC channels. Arch devs seem to think their users know everything, but there is enough evidence that not every single arch user reads all the details.
    - alexchamberlain 14y ago
      If you don't know enough to maintain your system, you shouldn't use Arch...
    - burntsushi 14y ago
      It is intentional. From the Archwiki [1]: > Arch Linux targets and accommodates competent GNU/Linux users by giving them complete control and responsibility over the system. [1] - https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way
      - 14y ago

mseebach 14y ago

Python 2 and 3 are in most practical senses two very closely related, but different, languages. So your scenario is not very different from the two groups of developers suggesting Python and Ruby. By the way, assuming either language satisfies the external requirements for the project, any half-way competent boss would say "Figure it out. Bring me your decision by the end of the day(/week/whatever). KTHXBYE."

masklinn 14y ago
> Python 2 and 3 are in most practical senses two very closely related, but different, languages. They're so closely related you can write code compatible with both (and that's the path many — if not most — libraries are taking)

alexchamberlain 14y ago

I hope this is some sort of development/project manager rather than a business manager, otherwise they shouldn't be choosing the language at all!

xradionut 14y ago

"I like Python, but keeping both 2 and 3 alive for so long has caused problems that make it hard to justify for serious projects." Sounds like a strawman arguement to me. People in the community are aware of the different versions of Python and know how to deal with it. This "issue" hasn't affected Google, NASA or the millions of developers/users that utilize Python to the extent that they are in crisis mode. You can run multiple versions of Python on the same system, there are utilities that make this manageable. What other language is "your" boss going to pick that you can't find issues with? Does he actually understand the technical details and history of said language? You can find all sorts of issues with any programming language, all of them are "Hopper complete."

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

njharman 14y ago

Get a different boss, that one sucks.