4 ms·

I think you're a little hard on Guido. CPython had amassed quite a few C extensions by that point. PyPy changes the low-level API in numerous significant ways.

I think you're a little hard on Guido. CPython had amassed quite a few C extensions by that point. PyPy changes the low-level API in numerous significant ways. If Guido were to merge CPython with PyPy it would break all of those extensions. These extensions are in no small part the reason why Python is so popular. If he were to break all of this work, he'd piss off quite a few people. Many of the same people that helped him make Python what it is today. Now I agree with you having PyPy's performance improvements in the main implementation would be awesome, and PyPy itself is quite impressive. If they could get both NumPy running on PyPy and support Python 3's changes, it would keep Python a strong competitor for the foreseeable future. And to your last point, I entirely agree Python 2.0 had so many strengths that it's really hard to improve upon it. Though I think that it's unicode support was the big hairy wart.

rdtsc 12y ago
> I think you're a little hard on Guido Perhaps you are right. My bitterness was coming through. It no t just that he said but how he said it. In a way Python 3.0 also broke compatibility, for what I think, are not very good reasons. Some of that code was from people/companies who have adopted and used Python and made it popular. They are now living on a dead-end maintenance only branch.
- tshepang 12y ago
  Read http://python-notes.curiousefficiency.org/en/latest/python3/questions_and_answers.html http://python-notes.curiousefficiency.org/en/latest/python3/... and tell me if you still not convinced.
  - rdtsc 12y ago
    Read it, still not convinced. Have you read what I wrote though? I think I was pretty clear that I knew about changes and knew about other things (iterator views) etc. None of those things make me want to get up roll up my sleeves and say "I can't wait to dig in and make my code compatible with 3.4". If I woke up tomorrow and someone would have magically done that for me and tested it, yeah great. I would buy them a beer. But that is about it. I have 0 incentive today to upgrade. Code works very well now just using unicode support from Python 2 and print as a statement + other warts.

rdtsc 12y ago

> I think you're a little hard on Guido Perhaps you are right. My bitterness was coming through. It no t just that he said but how he said it. In a way Python 3.0 also broke compatibility, for what I think, are not very good reasons. Some of that code was from people/companies who have adopted and used Python and made it popular. They are now living on a dead-end maintenance only branch.

tshepang 12y ago
Read http://python-notes.curiousefficiency.org/en/latest/python3/questions_and_answers.html http://python-notes.curiousefficiency.org/en/latest/python3/... and tell me if you still not convinced.
- rdtsc 12y ago
  Read it, still not convinced. Have you read what I wrote though? I think I was pretty clear that I knew about changes and knew about other things (iterator views) etc. None of those things make me want to get up roll up my sleeves and say "I can't wait to dig in and make my code compatible with 3.4". If I woke up tomorrow and someone would have magically done that for me and tested it, yeah great. I would buy them a beer. But that is about it. I have 0 incentive today to upgrade. Code works very well now just using unicode support from Python 2 and print as a statement + other warts.