8 ms·

"Do you think Python 3.x was a mistake?" That's where I stop filling out the survey. And that's the python community biggest problem. Moving forward, everyone

• falcolas 13y ago
  I wouldn't, not yet. There's not enough support. Great ideas, but the support isn't there for it yet: not in libraries, not in operating systems, not in documentation. I don't think Python3 was a mistake, but the migration is going to take time. Cutting off either group would have been a terrible decision, and I'm glad they didn't.
  • rgfqeqwer 13y ago
    This isn't actually true anymore for many, many things: - The major scientific/numerical packages support Python 3 (pandas, numpy, scipy). - The best database library supports Python 3 (SQLAlchemy) - A substantial fraction of important support libraries support Python 3 (e.g. lxml, PIL/pillow) - Django supports Python 3 I'm honestly a little confused by people who claim that library support for 3.x "isn't there yet". My entire office has switched to Python 3 for everything.
    • shadowmint 13y ago
      oh please. one single dependency that doesn't support py3 is the death knell to using it for anything, EVER I use python daily at work and you can be safely assured the state of py3 on pypi is fu$$$$ed. (we use pyramid not django for what it's worth)
      • kbenson 13y ago
        one single dependency that doesn't support py3 is the death knell to using it for anything, EVER Can't you logically extend that across language boundaries, and if so, why would you ever try to use a different language? A needed library or feature of a library might be missing. Is it really that hard to take whatever dependency isn't supported and patch it? Isn't that one of the benefits of running an interpreted language?
        • PythonicAlpha 13y ago
          No, if it is a library, that you use all over your code. And you will not risk that your project fails, just because somebody wants to use only the newest stuff. Nobody in a time critical project (when it is not?), will switch from Py2 to Py3 just because it is the most recent version of Python and replace at least one library that is written in C and does not work in Py3. Either you have to replace the whole lib or you have to port the lib itself (what is not easy, when you don't have an experienced extension coder in team -- and also than, it is a risk!).
          • kbenson 13y ago
            But the GP comment wasn't just addressing porting projects (which I would understand), it was "one single dependency that doesn't support py3 is the death knell to using it for anything, EVER" (emphasis theirs). That's a fairly strong opinion to take, and in my opinion, goes far enough to be ridiculous.
            • shadowmint 13y ago
              When you have the option of starting a project with py2 or py3 and you choose py3, and discover X days into the project that you have a broken dependency that wouldn't have been broken in py2, you've just increased the cost and time to deliver the project by an unknown factor. Perhaps for some projects, that factor is small. ...and for some of them, it turns out to be huge. So big you have to roll back to py2, and suck it up for lost time/money spent doing so. When you have a project that is time/cost critical, that risk is absolutely unacceptable. If you're working on your own projects, in your own time, sure thing. ...but professionally, on project work? No. Never. Until you get the reverse, where continuing to work in py2 introduces an equivalent risk, because new libraries are 'py3 only', there is no justification whatsoever for using python 3. Worse, because of this, when you're writing libraries, you have to make your py3 code py2 compatible, which means using the syntax-feature subset that works with py2, which basically defeats the entire purpose of migrating to py3. Kivy is great example. The next version is going to support py3; great! ...but it's going to continue to natively support py2 on the same code base; ie. no new python 3 features. It will simply 'work' under the python 3.X interpreters. That's why I will probably not end up using python3 in any professional work for the foreseeable future. (If you think that's ridiculous... what can I say? Clearly you haven't worked under time/cost pressures where you have to be personally responsible for delivering on time and budget)
    • collyw 13y ago
      Its all well saying Django supports Python 3, but when you reply on a dependency, such as MySQL connector (which I assume a LOT of Django users will want to use), then Django effectively doesn't work with Python 3.
      • ckarmann 13y ago
        I just stumbled on PyMySQL[0], who supports Python 3. Is there any issue with using this library, since it seems an obvious solution to this problem? [0] https://github.com/PyMySQL/PyMySQL/ https://github.com/PyMySQL/PyMySQL/
        • rgfqeqwer 13y ago
          No, there isn't. CyMySQL and oursql are also viable options.
        • collyw 13y ago
          Fair enough, but it wasn't available a couple of months back when I was trying out MySQL and Python 3. There were a few hacky solutions available.
  • crag 13y ago
    But for the newbie user it's a nightmare. If you google "Python training" you're going to get books, sites that offer training from 2.5 to 3.3. And those are recent sites (like 2012+). Not to mention pip and package management - which compared to ruby, is just terrible. I mean there isn't even an update all command in pip. And of course if you have different versions of python you have different versions of pip. With different version of packages installed. And now for virtualenv. Ok great tool. But even in this area there's confusion. Different people use different environment managers. And virtualenv isn't the easiest thing to setup - from a new users point of view. Where in ruby there's gem. It's installed with ruby. Period. The community isn't doing itself any favors by dragging their feet. Everyone should jump onboard the python3 wagon. And if you need a package that isn't 3, then rewrite or look for something else. Maybe if the maintainers of said packages knew that their users weren't gonna stand for not supporting version 3 they'd get off their butts and convert - or release the code and let the community convert the package for them.
    • pfranz 13y ago
      You're always going to have old documentation on the Internet (and it's a good thing!). The more annoying problem I encounter (not Python specific) is blog posts or news stories without publish dates. All of the Python communities I've seen have a "Python 2 or 3?" section that's pretty clear--"depends on what you want to get done. Python 2 is most widely deployed. Python 3 is complete but lacking an install base and library support." I've written a small amount of code in Python 3 and they're not that different. I entirely agree about package management (and virutalenv). It finally appears they have a way forward with package management. If that's implemented in Python 3, it'd be a significant reason to adopt. Virtualenv is already part of Python 3. At my workplace, we're still transitioning from Cent5 (ships with Python2.4, but we're using 2.6) to Cent6 (ships with 2.6). Our third-party packages are still on 2.6 and the newest versions of them are finally using 2.7. So we've brought up Python3, but are still just talking about moving to 2.7. I, too, wish adoption of Python3 was faster, but even if there were more enticing features my workplace is beholden to the platform we're using. I think now that newer distros default to Python3 is fantastic, and it will take the long term versions defaulting to them before most companies are convinced to switch (still a few years off).
• zephjc 13y ago
  I don't think it's a leading question - I think if they get a large enough sample size, it will be a worthwhile survey of the Python community's 2/3 behavior. Ultimately, you did pro-Python 3 supporters a disservice by not speaking up.
  • Tloewald 13y ago
    I suspect the survey is probably selection biased towards 3 as it is. In any event, whether respondents considered it a mistake or not, it's a mistake.
• comicjk 13y ago
  I think that's a very significant question. I would guess that 50%+ of Python users don't use Python 3, and thus would be counted as anti-Python-3, if not for that question which allows them to say "I don't think Python 3 is inherently a bad idea." It would be nice if the question were more specific and more positive, but the survey would be worse if it were simply taken out.
  • reuven 13y ago
    It's way way way higher than 50%, if my sample is accurate. I've been teaching Python in China, Europe, Israel, and the US for years. In the last four years alone, I've taught about 2-3 Python courses (usually intro, but sometimes advanced or on specific topics) each month, at companies like Apple, Cisco, Intel, and SANDisk. In only one case did a company ask me to teach them Python 3. The rest of them ask specifically for Python 2. In some, more advanced and unusual cases, they ask me to describe the changes that will happen in Python 3. They all have legacy code in Python 2 that they cannot imagine upgrading, mostly because there are libraries (internal or external) holding them back -- and the benefits aren't obvious. (I should note that almost none of my courses are at startups. So it's quite possible that I'm seeing a sample of large companies, which are inherently more conservative than smaller ones.) I thought that the survey was fine. But really, there's a problem in the whole Python 2/3 split, and while I've convinced myself over the years that people are switching, I've rarely met any of them. Which is really too bad.
    • kremlin 13y ago
      Being a newbie at Python myself and seeing how much the Python devs are trying to get people using Python 3, I was initially planning on just using Python 3 for all my Python coding. That was until I realized how many libraries exist only for Python 2.
  • njharman 13y ago
    Why not the question "Is staying on Python 2.x a mistake?" The whole survey is bunk. Too much misinformation and misbeliefs regarding Python 3. The only valid informed answers would be from those who've used (or used and failed) >= Py3.3 for something significant.
• srobertson 13y ago
  I have problems with the way this is worded as well. I don't think Python 3.x was a mistake. I think the mistake is continuing to develop it in parallel with 2.x with no definitive end of life for 2.x is the mistake.
  • PythonicAlpha 13y ago
    No, I disagree. So many programs rely on further support for Python 2. When you would end the life of Python 2, I myself would think, if I have to make a switch, should I switch to a more reliable codebase??? (Ruby, maybe -- I don't know enough about Ruby, but I would have a look on it) The reliability is one of Pythons strength and one of the reasons I use it. Take away the reliability and you will loose a lot. You will loose also many friends (like myself). There was a blog post recently and stated an other option: Bring Py2 and Py3 nearer together to make the switch easier -- than more people would willingly move. Some obstacles for moving where removed -- but a little late (e.g. the u"-Syntax was used many times in Py2 (at least outside english speaking countries or where localization is a topic) -- but abandoned in Py3. That was not necessary, but blocked an easy migration, because there are so many positions the code can be in. Now Py3 also supports the syntax and just ignores it ... why was that option not taken in the first place???) and not all. As much I know, there are still major differences when programming C extension libraries .... that makes porting existing libraries unnecessary troublesome. Such things where not recognized early enough and still hamper adoption of Py3. Remove the blocks and you will gain more ground!
    • srobertson 13y ago
      Setting an end of life for Python 2 would be the forcing function needed to ensure Python 3 is reliable and the migration path is clear. Knowing the end is coming would drive us (the community) together to discuss and resolve these issues. I for one never even considered that C extensions would be a serious road block. Which is obvious now that you mention it. And my main point, I've never bothered to research moving to Python 3 because there's no sense of urgency. If Guido set a date, say Jan 1st 2015, it would remove allot of the apathy we're currently seeing.
• Patrick_Devine 13y ago
  I really wish there was an "undecided" option for that particular question. I said "yes", but only because I think having backward compatibility trumps cleaning the language up. It's like any software project. It's always tempting to throw everything out and start fresh, but that always takes about 100x more work than what is budgeted for.
• DonGateley 13y ago
  Depends on how you interpret "mistake." I don't think that improving the language is necessarily a mistake, but the way they did it is a mistake. It should have been an absolute requirement that, one way or t'other, a user could employ 2.x libraries transparently. No change should have been allowed until and unless a way was found to make it not impact backward ecosystem compatibility. This is a law of nature that was ignored and 3.x is paying the price that anyone could have predicted (and most did.) Not ensuring library compatibility was lazy, egotistical arrogance and will ultimately relegate 3.x to being a historical footnote.