2 ms·

I guess I'm in the minority here of being a full time python developer and thinking 1) these are all totally unexciting for day to day python use, and 2) the on

I guess I'm in the minority here of being a full time python developer and thinking 1) these are all totally unexciting for day to day python use, and 2) the only actually interesting one (async io) is covered with: Not going to lie to you. I still don't get this. ...which is not really a call to arms for py3 as far as I'm concerned. (pypy support and potentially having one binary running 2.7 and 3.x at the same time is much more exciting)

jlarocco 12y ago
I agree. I use Python3, but for none of the reasons given. Some of the advice was just flat out bad, IMO. Like replacing def wat(a, b, *args) with def wat(*args) a, b, args = *args
- mewwts 12y ago
  I'm sure (I hope) that was just a proof of concept. It's a horrible idea!
  - eliben 12y ago
    No one in the Python community is advocating the "replacement". I think it's just an example of new syntax.
- sourpoi 12y ago
  Slight typo - the sample replacement should read: def wat(*args) a, b, *args = args ..But I don't see how moving required arguments from the signature to the body (or turning a TypeError into a ValueError) might be useful, or how it differs from the presentation's first advanced unpacking example.
natrius 12y ago
There's also a python 2.7 backport of asyncio that works perfectly fine for me. https://pypi.python.org/pypi/trollius https://pypi.python.org/pypi/trollius
brabram 12y ago
I'm exactly in the same boat than you. Worst, I do believe that, even if the API is nice, asyncio belongs to the old past way of doing concurrency, I want actor models and/or STM with feature like the ones found in clojure. Python core devs really miss the point that if you want people to move from one solution to another with a cost (here: breaking backward compatibility) you have to provide an high value reason to move (see the network effect). Here we only got minor (but cool) improvements, moving to python3 is just not worth it. It's like having to do a plain old boring homework imposed by a teacher with the only reason "because I told you to" (and the situation is even worst if you have to do compatible code for libs). I'm not at all against breaking backward compatibility, you have to have a good reason and to make it worth it and, of all the (minor) improvements I see, none of them was a justification for this. Tell me things like "oh, we break backward compatibility because we want to drop the GIL and implement the erlang actors model natively in python" and I'm with you the day it's released (even if you don't provide automatic CPU balancing at the beginning).

jlarocco 12y ago

I agree. I use Python3, but for none of the reasons given. Some of the advice was just flat out bad, IMO. Like replacing def wat(a, b, *args) with def wat(*args) a, b, args = *args

mewwts 12y ago
I'm sure (I hope) that was just a proof of concept. It's a horrible idea!
- eliben 12y ago
  No one in the Python community is advocating the "replacement". I think it's just an example of new syntax.
sourpoi 12y ago
Slight typo - the sample replacement should read: def wat(*args) a, b, *args = args ..But I don't see how moving required arguments from the signature to the body (or turning a TypeError into a ValueError) might be useful, or how it differs from the presentation's first advanced unpacking example.

natrius 12y ago

There's also a python 2.7 backport of asyncio that works perfectly fine for me. https://pypi.python.org/pypi/trollius https://pypi.python.org/pypi/trollius

brabram 12y ago

I'm exactly in the same boat than you. Worst, I do believe that, even if the API is nice, asyncio belongs to the old past way of doing concurrency, I want actor models and/or STM with feature like the ones found in clojure. Python core devs really miss the point that if you want people to move from one solution to another with a cost (here: breaking backward compatibility) you have to provide an high value reason to move (see the network effect). Here we only got minor (but cool) improvements, moving to python3 is just not worth it. It's like having to do a plain old boring homework imposed by a teacher with the only reason "because I told you to" (and the situation is even worst if you have to do compatible code for libs). I'm not at all against breaking backward compatibility, you have to have a good reason and to make it worth it and, of all the (minor) improvements I see, none of them was a justification for this. Tell me things like "oh, we break backward compatibility because we want to drop the GIL and implement the erlang actors model natively in python" and I'm with you the day it's released (even if you don't provide automatic CPU balancing at the beginning).