The real problem with Python 3 - no business case for conversion(was "I strongly dislike Python 3")
in [Python]
|
From: Thomas Jollans on 2 Jul 2010 15:59 On 07/02/2010 09:07 PM, John Nagle wrote: > > What I'm not seeing is a deployment plan along these lines: > > 1. Identify key modules which must be converted before Python 3 > can be used in production environments. That depends VERY strongly on the environment in question. > > 2. Get those modules converted to Python 3. The stdlib is there. The rocky bits are being fixed all the time. The other important modules all have strong development communities. Upstream numpy works with Python 3 already. (no release yet) That enables SciPy to update, which they will do. PyGObject is also working on Py3 support. > > 3. Put together a distribution for the major platforms (at least > Linux and Windows) with builds of those modules. This > could be done on PyPi, which is at present is mostly a link > farm, not a repository. The use cases for Python being as diverse as they are, this is utter nonsense. Also, I myself see no benefit in making PyPI a mirror of everything, as opposed to a useful index of packages that you may or may not want to use. > > 4. Get some major distros, like Debian and ActiveState, to > include Python 3, as "python3", not as the primary Python, > so there are no conflicts. (Debian already has a formal > policy to keep Python versions separate.) Current Ubuntu releases include Python 3.1 as /usr/bin/python3. So does Debian (not sure about stable at this point). I'm sure the other major Linux distributions are doing the same thing. It's happening! > > 5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3. Apparently, some hosters already support Python 3. Web development is a bit of a weak spot at the moment though, and this is problematic, due to WSGI not being quite unicode ready. > > 6. Get at least two popular end-user programs (not modules) to > support Python 3. > > 7. Publicize some success stories. > > Unless the Python 3 enthusiasts get their act together and work much > harder on providing an easy transition experience, it's not going to > happen. It's not happening fast, it probably can't, but it *is* happening. Software distributions are including Python 3, and popular modules/packages are starting to support it. Other software is going to move on in its own time.
From: John Nagle on 2 Jul 2010 19:44 On 7/2/2010 3:00 PM, Aahz wrote: > In article<4C2E38F5.10708(a)animats.com>, John Nagle<nagle(a)animats.com> wrote: >> >> 5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3. > > webfaction.com has python3.1 WebFaction's big thing is that they have a really good system for installing anything the user wants. They're doing semi-virtual machine hosting, where each user sees a somewhat different environment, but doesn't have their own copy of the Linux kernel. That's a nice advance in server management. Any user can install Python 3.x, but it's not there by default. See: "http://blog.webfaction.com/python-3-0-is-here" If that approach catches on, Python 3 deployment will be much easier. But for now, only a few smaller players like WebFaction are using it. John Nagle
From: Aahz on 2 Jul 2010 21:36 In article <4c2e79d3$0$1663$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, John Nagle <nagle(a)animats.com> wrote: >On 7/2/2010 3:00 PM, Aahz wrote: >> In article<4C2E38F5.10708(a)animats.com>, John Nagle<nagle(a)animats.com> wrote: >>> >>> 5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3. >> >> webfaction.com has python3.1 > > Any user can install Python 3.x, but it's not there by default. Yes, it is. I logged into my webfaction shell, typed python3.1, and got a standard Python prompt, without doing anything whatsoever to make Python 3.1 available. > "http://blog.webfaction.com/python-3-0-is-here" Is there some reason you're using a broken URL format? > If that approach catches on, Python 3 deployment will be much easier. >But for now, only a few smaller players like WebFaction are using it. In the hosting space that makes Python available, WebFaction is hardly a smaller player. -- Aahz (aahz(a)pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "If you don't know what your program is supposed to do, you'd better not start writing it." --Dijkstra
From: Terry Reedy on 2 Jul 2010 23:50 On 7/2/2010 3:07 PM, John Nagle wrote: > That's the real issue, not parentheses on the "print" statement. > Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster. > It doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6. False. One cannot run code in 2.6 that depends on bugfixes in 3.1. Nor can one run code with unicode identifiers. The exclusive new features in 3.1 and 3.2 are less than they might have been because the developers expended extra effort, now ended, to backport new things developed for 3.x. (One result was some neglect of the stdlib, which is now the focus of efforts.) One reason was to make porting to 3.x easier should one wish to do so. The other reason was to make some thing available should one wish not to do so. Using that extra effort as a reason to put down 3.x is not very gracious. > There's no "killer app" for it. For some, unicode identifiers are 'killer reason' to use 3.1. Anyway, can you name me a "killer app" for each and every version of 2.x? > End of life for Python 2.x is many years away; Given that 1.x is still used, so what? > most server Linux distros aren't even shipping with 2.6 yet. How can a > business justify spending money on conversion to Python 3? How can a business justify spending money on conversion to 2.0, 2,1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, or soon, 2.7? Some cannot for some projects and have not. Enough with strawman arguments against claims no sensible person has made. Python3 was developed for new Python programmers and current programmers who wished to add or switch. It was developed for new code and old code that would benefit from the changes. -- Terry Jan Reedy
From: John Nagle on 3 Jul 2010 01:40
On 7/2/2010 9:10 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > On 2 Jul 2010 15:00:17 -0700 > aahz(a)pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote: >>> 5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3. >> >> webfaction.com has python3.1 > > So does http://www.Vex.Net/ so there's your two. Not according to Vex's published package list: http://www.vex.net/info/tech/pkglist/ They list packages only for Python 2.6. "vex.net" isn't exactly a major hosting service. John Nagle |