I strongly dislike Python 3
in [Python]
|
From: Martin v. Loewis on 26 Jun 2010 15:08 >> No, "I'm" not trying to kill Python 2 at all. My current estimation is >> that I'll be using it for at least the next three years -- library >> conversion momentum is there, but its happening faster in the pure >> Python libraries then a few critical C extensions I rely upon. > > Based on my experience with Perl usage [1] I guess that Python 2 will be not > dead for 5 - 10 years. Certainly so. The three year estimation of Stephen was for his own personal usage. Python 2.7 will only fade out of existence once it fails to build and install on then-current operating systems. > >> Done means finished: complete, not going to be advanced any further. > > I think that's not true. If enough people want to support Python 2 it > might be possible to advance Python 2. That won't be sufficient: enough people wanting support won't have any effect. People also need to want it enough to actually fork from python.org. They would then have to convince Linux packagers to include it in the distribution even though it's not available from python.org, and convince Windows users to download it from some other place than python.org. I think people will find that this isn't really worth the trouble. Regards, Martin
From: Stephen Hansen on 26 Jun 2010 15:09 On 6/26/10 11:55 AM, Peter Kleiweg wrote: > I have been using Python 3 for quite some time now, and this [snip] I'm not advocating using Python 3 or that it doesn't have plenty of work to do still. I don't use it yet, so can't really comment on any of your issues except to ask: Have you opened bug reports? If not, well... -- ... Stephen Hansen ... Also: Ixokai ... Mail: me+list/python (AT) ixokai (DOT) io ... Blog: http://meh.ixokai.io/
From: Chris Rebert on 26 Jun 2010 15:18 On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Peter Kleiweg <p.c.j.kleiweg(a)rug.nl> wrote: > Stephen Hansen schreef op de 26e dag van de zomermaand van het jaar 2010: >> There were various serious problems with Python 2 which could not be fixed in >> a backwards compatible way; we've been living with them for years and years >> now, and it was decided that a single break to go back and correct them would >> be preferable to keeping them forever. >> >> From the fact that "strings" in Python 2 ended up doing double-duty as both >> octet sequences and arrays of character text, to yes the syntactical > > I have been using Python 3 for quite some time now, and this > string thing in Python 3 has caused me more headaches than it > ever did in Python 2. <snip> > Some basic text string functions seem to be working on byte > string functions as well, but sometimes they don't, and there's > no rhyme in why it does or doesn't. > > Â Â >>> 'abcd'[0] == 'abcd'[:1] > Â Â True > Â Â >>> b'abcd'[0] == b'abcd'[:1] > Â Â False > > Why???? In the bytes example, the former expression gives an integer corresponding the the value of the first byte, while the latter gives a bytes object of length 1 (this reminds me of Ruby now that I think about it). The slicing behavior of bytes takes some getting used to, but there aren't many good alternatives. Using chr() and ord() on bytes would feel a bit weird, no? Cheers, Chris -- http://blog.rebertia.com
From: Peter Kleiweg on 26 Jun 2010 15:17 Stephen Hansen schreef op de 26e dag van de zomermaand van het jaar 2010: > On 6/26/10 11:55 AM, Peter Kleiweg wrote: > > > I have been using Python 3 for quite some time now, and this > [snip] > > I'm not advocating using Python 3 or that it doesn't have plenty of work to do > still. I don't use it yet, so can't really comment on any of your issues > except to ask: Have you opened bug reports? Yes. -- Peter Kleiweg L:NL,af,da,de,en,ia,nds,no,sv,(fr,it) S:NL,de,en,(da,ia) info: http://www.let.rug.nl/kleiweg/ls.html
From: Ian Kelly on 26 Jun 2010 15:30
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Lie Ryan <lie.1296(a)gmail.com> wrote: > What really matters is not the number of extra characters, but the > number of keystrokes. On a typical keyboard, producing a '(' requires 2 > keystrokes (Shift + 9) and another 2 keystrokes for ')' (Shift + 0). > Also, spacebar is a key in the home position of the thumb, while 9 and 0 > are on the top row of the weaker fingers (ring and little finger). > > All in all, the new syntax requires 4 keystrokes, none of which are home > keys; compared with old syntax which requires 1 keystroke in thumb's > home position. That's true, although a good IDE will automatically produce the closing bracket when you type the opening bracket. |