4 ms·

Well, the payoff is probably not that great, but how much effort is really required to move to 3? Rewriting print statements and changing a couple import statem

by tormeh 13y ago

Well, the payoff is probably not that great, but how much effort is really required to move to 3? Rewriting print statements and changing a couple import statements? Anything else? There's no carrot and no stick, but you're only being asked to stand up for a second so someone can switch your chair into something more comfortable. You're not exactly rewriting it in Perl.

rdtsc 13y ago
> but how much effort is really required to move to 3? Rewriting print statements and changing a couple import statements? Most important -- risk. Risk that stuff will break. One of the biggest ones is change to the .keys(), .values() to behave like iterkeys. Also unicode vs byte strings. Also time. And time = $ in most places. So far need the benefits are just not there. It is something like this: benefit(switch) = code_improvements - time - risk + possible_future_benefits (time has an opportunity cost folded into it, if I am porting to 3 I am not working on other stuff). So far benefit is either negative or just too small for me.
- zzzeek 13y ago
  > Most important -- risk. Risk that stuff will break. that's what test coverage is for. if you don't have coverage, then your code is already broken.
  - rdtsc 13y ago
    Well customers pay for it, use it and like it. That my book qualifies it as not broken. They can chose other software but they pick this one. Also, just because unit tests cover the code and pass doesn't mean product is not broken. Two working units of code adding together in a system don't guarantee that system will do what it is supposed to do. So yes there is risk. The bigger problem is that there are not tangible benefits of Python 3. That is its tragedy the way I see it. And time-wise, it is pretty sad, it might take me less than a few days to work through it, but it is still not worth it.

4 ms·

Well, the payoff is probably not that great, but how much effort is really required to move to 3? Rewriting print statements and changing a couple import statem

by tormeh 13y ago

rdtsc 13y ago
> but how much effort is really required to move to 3? Rewriting print statements and changing a couple import statements? Most important -- risk. Risk that stuff will break. One of the biggest ones is change to the .keys(), .values() to behave like iterkeys. Also unicode vs byte strings. Also time. And time = $ in most places. So far need the benefits are just not there. It is something like this: benefit(switch) = code_improvements - time - risk + possible_future_benefits (time has an opportunity cost folded into it, if I am porting to 3 I am not working on other stuff). So far benefit is either negative or just too small for me.
- zzzeek 13y ago
  > Most important -- risk. Risk that stuff will break. that's what test coverage is for. if you don't have coverage, then your code is already broken.
  - rdtsc 13y ago
    Well customers pay for it, use it and like it. That my book qualifies it as not broken. They can chose other software but they pick this one. Also, just because unit tests cover the code and pass doesn't mean product is not broken. Two working units of code adding together in a system don't guarantee that system will do what it is supposed to do. So yes there is risk. The bigger problem is that there are not tangible benefits of Python 3. That is its tragedy the way I see it. And time-wise, it is pretty sad, it might take me less than a few days to work through it, but it is still not worth it.