Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #62898 > unrolled thread

Blog "about python 3"

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Blog "about python 3" Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-30 19:41 +0000
    Re: Blog "about python 3" Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-12-30 20:49 +0000
      Re: Blog "about python 3" Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-30 21:29 +0000
      Re: Blog "about python 3" Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-12-30 14:38 -0800
      Re: Blog "about python 3" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-12-31 12:09 +1100
      Re: Blog "about python 3" Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-31 04:38 +0000
      Re: Blog "about python 3" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-12-31 15:44 +1100
      Re: Blog "about python 3" Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-12-30 20:33 -0800
      Re: Blog "about python 3" Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-31 04:59 +0000
      Re: Blog "about python 3" Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-31 08:22 +0000
        Re: Blog "about python 3" Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-12-31 20:53 +1100
          Re: Blog "about python 3" Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> - 2013-12-31 14:13 +0000
            Re: Blog "about python 3" Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-12-31 10:41 -0500
              Re: Blog "about python 3" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-01 02:54 +1100
              Re: Blog "about python 3" Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-31 15:55 +0000
              Re: Blog "about python 3" Robin Becker <robin@reportlab.com> - 2014-01-02 17:36 +0000
                Re: Blog "about python 3" Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-01-03 15:49 +1100
                  Re: Blog "about python 3" Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-01-03 04:01 -0500
                    Re: Blog "about python 3" wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2014-01-03 02:10 -0800
                      Re: Blog "about python 3" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-03 21:24 +1100
                      Re: Blog "about python 3" Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2014-01-03 08:56 -0800
                  Re: Blog "about python 3" Robin Becker <robin@reportlab.com> - 2014-01-03 12:28 +0000
                    Re: Blog "about python 3" Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-03 09:57 -0500
                      Re: Blog "about python 3" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-04 02:32 +1100
                  Re: Blog "about python 3" Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-01-03 17:00 -0500
                  Re: Blog "about python 3" Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-04 04:04 +0000
                    Re: Blog "about python 3" Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-04 08:55 -0500
                      Re: Blog "about python 3" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-05 01:17 +1100
                        Re: Blog "about python 3" wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2014-01-04 11:10 -0800
                          Re: Blog "about python 3" Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-01-04 17:46 -0500
                            Re: Blog "about python 3" wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2014-01-05 06:23 -0800
                              Re: Blog "about python 3" Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2014-01-05 10:20 -0500
                              Re: Blog "about python 3" Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-01-05 17:14 -0500
                                Re: Blog "about python 3" wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2014-01-07 05:34 -0800
                                  Re: Blog "about python 3" Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-01-07 09:54 -0500
                                  Re: Blog "about python 3" Tim Delaney <timothy.c.delaney@gmail.com> - 2014-01-08 09:38 +1100
                                  Re: Blog "about python 3" Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-01-07 19:02 -0500
                                    Re: Blog "about python 3" wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2014-01-08 01:59 -0800
                                      Re: Blog "about python 3" Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-01-08 14:26 -0500
                                  Re: Blog "about python 3" Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-08 20:04 +0000
                              Re: Blog "about python 3" Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-01-05 17:48 -0500
                          Re: Blog "about python 3" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-05 10:28 +1100
                      Re: Blog "about python 3" Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2014-01-04 12:51 -0500
                      Re: Blog "about python 3" Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-01-05 13:27 +1100
                        Re: Blog "about python 3" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-05 13:32 +1100
                        Re: Blog "about python 3" MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2014-01-05 02:41 +0000
                        Re: Blog "about python 3" Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-04 22:20 -0500
                          Re: Blog "about python 3" Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-01-05 10:12 +0530
                            Re: Blog "about python 3" Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-05 00:11 -0500
                          Re: Blog "about python 3" Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-01-05 17:28 +1100
                            Re: Blog "about python 3" Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-01-05 14:05 -0500
                          Re: Blog "about python 3" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-05 15:01 +1100
                            Re: Blog "about python 3" Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-05 11:34 -0500
                              Re: Blog "about python 3" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-06 03:51 +1100
                                Re: Blog "about python 3" Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-05 12:09 -0500
                                Re: Blog "about python 3" Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-01-06 11:42 +1100
                              Re: Blog "about python 3" Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-01-05 17:56 -0500
                              Re: Blog "about python 3" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-06 10:59 +1100
                              Re: Blog "about python 3" Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-01-06 12:23 +1100
                                Re: Blog "about python 3" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-06 12:54 +1100
                                Re: Blog "about python 3" Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-06 05:53 +0000
                        Re: Blog "about python 3" Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2014-01-05 00:00 -0800
                          Re: Blog "about python 3" Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-01-05 23:28 +1100
                            Re: Blog "about python 3" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-05 23:48 +1100
                            Re: Blog "about python 3" Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-05 11:10 -0500
                        Re: Blog "about python 3" Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-01-05 13:51 -0500
              Re: Blog "about python 3" David Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> - 2014-01-02 13:25 -0500
              Re: Blog "about python 3" Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-01-02 13:37 -0500
              Re: Blog "about python 3" Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> - 2014-01-02 23:57 +0000
              Re: Blog "about python 3" Robin Becker <robin@reportlab.com> - 2014-01-03 10:32 +0000
              Re: Blog "about python 3" Robin Becker <robin@reportlab.com> - 2014-01-03 11:14 +0000
                Re: Blog "about python 3" wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2014-01-04 05:52 -0800
                  Re: Blog "about python 3" Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-01-05 13:41 +1100
                    Re: Blog "about python 3" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-05 13:54 +1100
                      Re: Blog "about python 3" wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2014-01-05 02:39 -0800
              Re: Blog "about python 3" Robin Becker <robin@reportlab.com> - 2014-01-03 11:37 +0000
              Re: Blog "about python 3" Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-04 07:30 +0000
          Re: Blog "about python 3" Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2014-01-05 13:14 +0100
            Re: Blog "about python 3" Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> - 2014-01-05 14:55 +0100
          Re: Blog "about python 3" Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-05 13:10 +0000
      Re: Blog "about python 3" Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-12-31 20:04 +1100
      Re: Blog "about python 3" Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2013-12-30 20:25 -0800

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#62898 — Blog "about python 3"

http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-3/ may be of interest to 
some of you.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask 
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#62901

On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:41:44 +0000, Mark Lawrence wrote:

> http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-3/ may be of interest to
> some of you.

I don't know whether to thank you for the link, or shout at you for 
sending eyeballs to look at such a pile of steaming bullshit.

I'd like to know where Alex gets the idea that the transition of Python 2 
to 3 was supposed to be a five year plan. As far as I know, it was a ten 
year plan, and we're well ahead of expectations of where we would be at 
this point of time. People *are* using Python 3, the major Linux distros 
are planning to move to Python 3, the "Python Wall Of Shame" stopped 
being a wall of shame a long time ago (I think it was a year ago? or at 
least six months ago). Alex's article is, basically, FUD.

More comments will have to follow later.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62904

On 30/12/2013 20:49, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:41:44 +0000, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-3/ may be of interest to
>> some of you.
>
> I don't know whether to thank you for the link, or shout at you for
> sending eyeballs to look at such a pile of steaming bullshit.
>
> I'd like to know where Alex gets the idea that the transition of Python 2
> to 3 was supposed to be a five year plan. As far as I know, it was a ten
> year plan, and we're well ahead of expectations of where we would be at
> this point of time. People *are* using Python 3, the major Linux distros
> are planning to move to Python 3, the "Python Wall Of Shame" stopped
> being a wall of shame a long time ago (I think it was a year ago? or at
> least six months ago). Alex's article is, basically, FUD.
>
> More comments will have to follow later.
>

http://nuitka.net/posts/re-about-python-3.html is a response.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask 
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62907

On 12/30/2013 01:29 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 30/12/2013 20:49, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:41:44 +0000, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>> http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-3/ may be of interest to
>>> some of you.
>>
>> I don't know whether to thank you for the link, or shout at you for
>> sending eyeballs to look at such a pile of steaming bullshit.
>
> http://nuitka.net/posts/re-about-python-3.html is a response.

Wow -- another steaming pile!  Mark, are you going for a record?  ;)

--
~Ethan~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62911

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
> On 12/30/2013 01:29 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>
>> On 30/12/2013 20:49, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:41:44 +0000, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-3/ may be of interest to
>>>> some of you.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know whether to thank you for the link, or shout at you for
>>> sending eyeballs to look at such a pile of steaming bullshit.
>>
>>
>> http://nuitka.net/posts/re-about-python-3.html is a response.
>
>
> Wow -- another steaming pile!  Mark, are you going for a record?  ;)

Does this steam?

http://rosuav.blogspot.com/2013/12/about-python-3-response.html

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62914

On 30/12/2013 22:38, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 12/30/2013 01:29 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> On 30/12/2013 20:49, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:41:44 +0000, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-3/ may be of interest to
>>>> some of you.
>>>
>>> I don't know whether to thank you for the link, or shout at you for
>>> sending eyeballs to look at such a pile of steaming bullshit.
>>
>> http://nuitka.net/posts/re-about-python-3.html is a response.
>
> Wow -- another steaming pile!  Mark, are you going for a record?  ;)
>
> --
> ~Ethan~

Merely pointing out the existence of these little gems in order to find 
out people's feelings about them.  You never know, we might even end up 
with a thread whereby the discussion is Python, the whole Python and 
nothing but the Python.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask 
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62915

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> You never know, we might even end up with a thread whereby the discussion is
> Python, the whole Python and nothing but the Python.

What, on python-list??! [1] That would be a silly idea. We should
avoid such theories with all vigor.

ChrisA

[1] In C, that would be interpreted as "What, on python-list|" and
would confuse everyone.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62916

On 12/30/2013 08:25 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
>> Wow -- another steaming pile!  Mark, are you going for a record?  ;)
>
> Indeed. Every post that disagrees with my opinion and understanding of
> the situation is complete BS and a conspiracy to spread fear,
> uncertainty, and doubt. Henceforth I will explain few to no specific
> disagreements, nor will I give anyone the benefit of the doubt,
> because that would be silly.

Couldn't of said it better myself!  Well, except for the "my opinion" part -- obviously it's not my opinion, but 
reality!  ;)

--
~Ethan~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62917

On 31/12/2013 01:09, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
>> On 12/30/2013 01:29 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30/12/2013 20:49, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:41:44 +0000, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-3/ may be of interest to
>>>>> some of you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know whether to thank you for the link, or shout at you for
>>>> sending eyeballs to look at such a pile of steaming bullshit.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://nuitka.net/posts/re-about-python-3.html is a response.
>>
>>
>> Wow -- another steaming pile!  Mark, are you going for a record?  ;)
>
> Does this steam?
>
> http://rosuav.blogspot.com/2013/12/about-python-3-response.html
>
> ChrisA
>

I'd have said restrained.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask 
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62919

On 30/12/2013 22:38, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 12/30/2013 01:29 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> On 30/12/2013 20:49, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:41:44 +0000, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-3/ may be of interest to
>>>> some of you.
>>>
>>> I don't know whether to thank you for the link, or shout at you for
>>> sending eyeballs to look at such a pile of steaming bullshit.
>>
>> http://nuitka.net/posts/re-about-python-3.html is a response.
>
> Wow -- another steaming pile!  Mark, are you going for a record?  ;)
>
> --
> ~Ethan~

I wasn't, but I am now 
http://blog.startifact.com/posts/alex-gaynor-on-python-3.html. "The 
Python core developers somewhat gleefully slammed the door shut on 
Python 2.8 back in 2011, though.", which refers to PEP 404 which I 
mentioned a month or so ago.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask 
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62922

Mark Lawrence wrote:

> http://blog.startifact.com/posts/alex-gaynor-on-python-3.html.

I quote:

"...perhaps a brave group of volunteers will stand up and fork Python 2, and
take the incremental steps forward. This will have to remain just an idle
suggestion, as I'm not volunteering myself."

I expect that as excuses for not migrating get fewer, and the deadline for
Python 2.7 end-of-life starts to loom closer, more and more haters^W
Concerned People will whine about the lack of version 2.8 and ask for
*somebody else* to fork Python.

I find it, hmmm, interesting, that so many of these Concerned People who say
that they're worried about splitting the Python community[1] end up
suggesting that we *split the community* into those who have moved forward
to Python 3 and those who won't.





[1] As if the community is a single amorphous group. It is not. It is made
up of web developers using Zope or Django, and scientists using scipy, and
linguists using NLTK, and system administrators using nothing but the
stdlib, and school kids learning how to program, and professionals who know
seventeen different programming languages, and EVE Online gamers using
Stackless, and Java guys using Jython, and many more besides, most of whom
are sure that their little tiny part of the Python ecosystem is
representative of everyone else when in fact they hardly talk at all.

-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62927

Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python <at> pearwood.info> writes:
> 
> I expect that as excuses for not migrating get fewer, and the deadline for
> Python 2.7 end-of-life starts to loom closer, more and more haters^W
> Concerned People will whine about the lack of version 2.8 and ask for
> *somebody else* to fork Python.
> 
> I find it, hmmm, interesting, that so many of these Concerned People who say
> that they're worried about splitting the Python community[1] end up
> suggesting that we *split the community* into those who have moved forward
> to Python 3 and those who won't.

Indeed. This would be extremely destructive (not to mention alienating the
people doing *actual* maintenance and enhancements on Python-and-its-stdlib,
of which at least 95% are committed to the original plan for 3.x to slowly
supercede 2.x).

Regards

Antoine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62930

In article <mailman.4753.1388499265.18130.python-list@python.org>,
 Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:

> Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python <at> pearwood.info> writes:
> > 
> > I expect that as excuses for not migrating get fewer, and the deadline for
> > Python 2.7 end-of-life starts to loom closer, more and more haters^W
> > Concerned People will whine about the lack of version 2.8 and ask for
> > *somebody else* to fork Python.
> > 
> > I find it, hmmm, interesting, that so many of these Concerned People who say
> > that they're worried about splitting the Python community[1] end up
> > suggesting that we *split the community* into those who have moved forward
> > to Python 3 and those who won't.
> 
> Indeed. This would be extremely destructive (not to mention alienating the
> people doing *actual* maintenance and enhancements on Python-and-its-stdlib,
> of which at least 95% are committed to the original plan for 3.x to slowly
> supercede 2.x).
> 
> Regards
> 
> Antoine.

I'm using 2.7 in production.  I realize that at some point we'll need to 
upgrade to 3.x.  We'll keep putting that off as long as the "effort + 
dependencies + risk" metric exceeds the "perceived added value" metric.

I can't imagine the migration will happen in 2014.  Maybe not even in 
2015.  Beyond that, my crystal ball only shows darkness.  But, in any 
case, going with a fork of 2.x has zero appeal.  Given the choice 
between effort + risk to move forward vs. effort + risk to move 
sideways, I'll move forward every time.

To be honest, the "perceived added value" in 3.x is pretty low for us.  
What we're running now works.  Switching to 3.x isn't going to increase 
our monthly average users, or our retention rate, or decrease our COGS, 
or increase our revenue.  There's no killer features we need.  In 
summary, the decision to migrate will be driven more by risk aversion, 
when the risk of staying on an obsolete, unsupported platform, exceeds 
the risk of moving to a new one.  Or, there will be some third-party 
module that we must have which is no longer supported on 2.x.

If I were starting a new project today, I would probably start it in 3.x.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62931

On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
> To be honest, the "perceived added value" in 3.x is pretty low for us.
> What we're running now works.  Switching to 3.x isn't going to increase
> our monthly average users, or our retention rate, or decrease our COGS,
> or increase our revenue.  There's no killer features we need.  In
> summary, the decision to migrate will be driven more by risk aversion,
> when the risk of staying on an obsolete, unsupported platform, exceeds
> the risk of moving to a new one.  Or, there will be some third-party
> module that we must have which is no longer supported on 2.x.

The biggest killer feature for most deployments is likely to be that
Unicode "just works" everywhere. Any new module added to Py3 can be
back-ported to Py2 (with some amount of work - might be trivial, might
be a huge job), and syntactic changes are seldom a "killer feature",
but being able to depend on *every single library function* working
perfectly with the full Unicode range means you don't have to test
every branch of your code.

If that's not going to draw you, then yeah, there's not a lot to
justify switching. You won't get more users, it'll increase your costs
(though by a fixed amount, not an ongoing cost), and old code is
trustworthy code, new code is bug city.

> If I were starting a new project today, I would probably start it in 3.x.

And that's the right attitude (though I would drop the "probably").
Eventually it'll become more critical to upgrade (once Py2 security
patches stop coming through, maybe), and when that day does finally
come, you'll be glad you have just your 2013 codebases rather than the
additional ones dating from 2014 and on until whatever day that is.
The past is Py2; the future is Py3. In between, use whichever one
makes better business sense.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62932

On 31/12/2013 15:41, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <mailman.4753.1388499265.18130.python-list@python.org>,
>   Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
>
>> Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python <at> pearwood.info> writes:
>>>
>>> I expect that as excuses for not migrating get fewer, and the deadline for
>>> Python 2.7 end-of-life starts to loom closer, more and more haters^W
>>> Concerned People will whine about the lack of version 2.8 and ask for
>>> *somebody else* to fork Python.
>>>
>>> I find it, hmmm, interesting, that so many of these Concerned People who say
>>> that they're worried about splitting the Python community[1] end up
>>> suggesting that we *split the community* into those who have moved forward
>>> to Python 3 and those who won't.
>>
>> Indeed. This would be extremely destructive (not to mention alienating the
>> people doing *actual* maintenance and enhancements on Python-and-its-stdlib,
>> of which at least 95% are committed to the original plan for 3.x to slowly
>> supercede 2.x).
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antoine.
>
> I'm using 2.7 in production.  I realize that at some point we'll need to
> upgrade to 3.x.  We'll keep putting that off as long as the "effort +
> dependencies + risk" metric exceeds the "perceived added value" metric.
>

Do you use any of the features that were backported from 3.x to 2.7, or 
could you have stayed with 2.6 or an even older version?

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask 
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62988

On 31/12/2013 15:41, Roy Smith wrote:
> I'm using 2.7 in production.  I realize that at some point we'll need to
> upgrade to 3.x.  We'll keep putting that off as long as the "effort +
> dependencies + risk" metric exceeds the "perceived added value" metric.
>
We too are using python 2.4 - 2.7 in production. Different clients migrate at 
different speeds.

>
> To be honest, the "perceived added value" in 3.x is pretty low for us.
> What we're running now works.  Switching to 3.x isn't going to increase
> our monthly average users, or our retention rate, or decrease our COGS,
> or increase our revenue.  There's no killer features we need.  In
> summary, the decision to migrate will be driven more by risk aversion,
> when the risk of staying on an obsolete, unsupported platform, exceeds
> the risk of moving to a new one.  Or, there will be some third-party
> module that we must have which is no longer supported on 2.x.
>

+1

> If I were starting a new project today, I would probably start it in 3.x.
+1

I just spent a large amount of effort porting reportlab to a version which works 
with both python2.7 and python3.3. I have a large number of functions etc which 
handle the conversions that differ between the two pythons.

For fairly sensible reasons we changed the internal default to use unicode 
rather than bytes. After doing all that and making the tests compatible etc etc 
I have a version which runs in both and passes all its tests. However, for 
whatever reason the python 3.3 version runs slower

2.7 Ran 223 tests in 66.578s

3.3 Ran 223 tests in 75.703s

I know some of these tests are fairly variable, but even for simple things like 
paragraph parsing 3.3 seems to be slower. Since both use unicode internally it 
can't be that can it, or is python 2.7's unicode faster?

So far the superiority of 3.3 escapes me, but I'm tasked with enjoying this 
process so I'm sure there must be some new 'feature' that will help. Perhaps 
'yield from' or 'raise from None' or .......

In any case I think we will be maintaining python 2.x code for at least another 
5 years; the version gap is then a real hindrance.
-- 
Robin Becker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#63036

Robin Becker wrote:

> For fairly sensible reasons we changed the internal default to use unicode
> rather than bytes. After doing all that and making the tests compatible
> etc etc I have a version which runs in both and passes all its tests.
> However, for whatever reason the python 3.3 version runs slower

"For whatever reason" is right, unfortunately there's no real way to tell
from the limited information you give what that might be.

Are you comparing a 2.7 "wide" or "narrow" build? Do your tests use any
so-called "astral characters" (characters in the Supplementary Multilingual
Planes, i.e. characters with ord() > 0xFFFF)?

If I remember correctly, some early alpha(?) versions of Python 3.3
consistently ran Unicode operations a small but measurable amount slower
than 3.2 or 2.7. That especially effected Windows. But I understand that
this was sped up in the release version of 3.3.

There are some operations with Unicode strings in 3.3 which unavoidably are
slower. If you happen to hit a combination of such operations (mostly to do
with creating lots of new strings and then throwing them away without doing
much work) your code may turn out to be a bit slower. But that's a pretty
artificial set of code.

Generally, test code doesn't make good benchmarks. Tests only get run once,
in arbitrary order, it spends a lot of time setting up and tearing down
test instances, there are all sorts of confounding factors. This plays
merry hell with modern hardware optimizations. In addition, it's quite
possible that you're seeing some other slow down (the unittest module?) and
misinterpreting it as related to string handling. But without seeing your
entire code base and all the tests, who can say for sure?


> 2.7 Ran 223 tests in 66.578s
> 
> 3.3 Ran 223 tests in 75.703s
> 
> I know some of these tests are fairly variable, but even for simple things
> like paragraph parsing 3.3 seems to be slower. Since both use unicode
> internally it can't be that can it, or is python 2.7's unicode faster?

Faster in some circumstances, slower in others. If your application
bottleneck is the availability of RAM for strings, 3.3 will potentially be
faster since it can use anything up to 1/4 of the memory for strings. If
your application doesn't use much memory, or if it uses lots of strings
which get created then thrown away.


> So far the superiority of 3.3 escapes me, 

Yeah I know, I resisted migrating from 1.5 to 2.x for years. When I finally
migrated to 2.3, at first I couldn't see any benefit either. New style
classes? Super? Properties? Unified ints and longs? Big deal. Especially
since I was still writing 1.5 compatible code and couldn't really take
advantage of the new features.

When I eventually gave up on supporting versions pre-2.3, it was a load off
my shoulders. Now I can't wait to stop supporting 2.4 and 2.5, which will
make things even easier. And when I can ignore everything below 3.3 will be
a truly happy day.


> but I'm tasked with enjoying 
> this process so I'm sure there must be some new 'feature' that will help.
> Perhaps 'yield from' or 'raise from None' or .......

No, you have this completely backwards. New features don't help you support
old versions of Python that lack those new features. New features are an
incentive to drop support for old versions.


> In any case I think we will be maintaining python 2.x code for at least
> another 5 years; the version gap is then a real hindrance.

Five years sounds about right.



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#63043

On 1/2/2014 11:49 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Robin Becker wrote:
>
>> For fairly sensible reasons we changed the internal default to use unicode
>> rather than bytes. After doing all that and making the tests compatible
>> etc etc I have a version which runs in both and passes all its tests.
>> However, for whatever reason the python 3.3 version runs slower
>
> "For whatever reason" is right, unfortunately there's no real way to tell
> from the limited information you give what that might be.
>
> Are you comparing a 2.7 "wide" or "narrow" build? Do your tests use any
> so-called "astral characters" (characters in the Supplementary Multilingual
> Planes, i.e. characters with ord() > 0xFFFF)?
>
> If I remember correctly, some early alpha(?) versions of Python 3.3
> consistently ran Unicode operations a small but measurable amount slower
> than 3.2 or 2.7. That especially effected Windows. But I understand that
> this was sped up in the release version of 3.3.

There was more speedup in 3.3.2 and possibly even more in 3.3.3, so OP 
should run the latter.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#63047

It's time to understand the Character Encoding Models
and the math behind it.
Unicode does not differ from any other coding scheme.

How? With a sheet of paper and a pencil.

jmf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#63048

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:10 PM,  <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's time to understand the Character Encoding Models
> and the math behind it.
> Unicode does not differ from any other coding scheme.
>
> How? With a sheet of paper and a pencil.
>

One plus one is two, therefore Python is better than Haskell.

Four times five is twelve, and four times six is thirteen, and four
times seven is enough to make Alice think she's Mabel, and London is
the capital of Paris, and the crocodile cheerfully grins. Therefore,
by obvious analogy, Unicode times new-style classes equals a 64-bit
process.

I worked that out with a sheet of paper and a pencil. The pencil was a
little help, but the paper was three sheets in the wind.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web