myths about python 3
in [Python]
|
Prev: Ad hoc lists vs ad hoc tuples
Next: Python and Ruby
From: Ben Finney on 27 Jan 2010 16:50 Christian Heimes <lists(a)cheimes.de> writes: > John Nagle wrote: > > 1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions. > > > > FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best. > > You are wrong. Modern versions of Debian / Ubuntu are using Python > 2.6. Only if by “modern” you mean “not released yet”. The latest stable Debian (Debian 5.0, Lenny) has only Python 2.4 and Python 2.5. It does not have Python 2.6 at all, and until this month Python 2.6 was not even in the in-development suite of Debian. Fortunately, Debian Squeeze now finally has added Python 2.6 (though currently 'python' still uses Python 2.5). But Squeeze is currently a long way from being released. Python 3 is in the play-pen of Debian “unstable”, but only arrived this week. It's even further from being released; it has to pass the filter from “unstable” to “testing” before it gets consideration for that. So I think your statement above is at least a mischaracterisation of the truth. -- \ “As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of | `\ the demand.” —Josh Billings | _o__) | Ben Finney
From: Adam Tauno Williams on 27 Jan 2010 17:00 On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 16:25 -0500, Benjamin Kaplan wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:56 PM, John Nagle <nagle(a)animats.com> wrote: > Give the package maintainers time to update. There were some pretty > big changes to the C API. Most of the major 3rd party packages like > numpy and MySQLdb have already commited to having a Python 3 version. > They just haven't gotten them out yet. PostgreSQL support is available for Python3. Just switch to using a real database and one of you problems is solved. :)
From: Carl Banks on 27 Jan 2010 17:07 On Jan 27, 12:56 pm, John Nagle <na...(a)animats.com> wrote: > Arguably, Python 3 has been rejected by the market. No it's not fathomably arguable, because there's no reasonable way that Python 3 could have fully replaced Python 2 so quickly. At best, you could reasonably argue there hasn't been enough time to tell. > Instead, there's > now Python 2.6, Python 2.7, and Python 2.8. It was always the plan to continue developing Python 2.x alongside Python 3.x during the transition period. Last I heard, don't remember where, the plan was for Python 2.7 to be the last version in the Python 2 line. If that's true, Python 3 acceptance is further along at this point than anticipated, since they originally thought they might have to go up to 2.9. > Python 3 has turned into > a debacle like Perl 6, now 10 years old. Perl 6 has never been released. The situations aren't even comparable. > That's the reality, Python 3 fanboys. You're the fanboy, fanboi. You are so hellbent on badmouthing Python 3 that you throw three ridiculous, straw-grasping arguments at us. Here's the real reality. Python 3 is going to replace Python 2, and it has nothing to do with technical merit. The developers are planning to stop development on 2.x line, and only continue with 3.x, so anyone who wants to stay current--which is most people--with Python will have to use 3.x. There is no hope that developers will be pressured by the market to change their plans; we would have seen enough of a backlash by now. There is also no hope someone will fork Python 2.x and continue it in perpetuity. Well, someone might try to fork it, but they won't be able to call it Python. No, don't be silly, a fork of Python not called Python won't gain market share. So rail if it makes you feel better but you've already lost. Carl Banks
From: exarkun on 27 Jan 2010 17:19 On 10:07 pm, pavlovevidence(a)gmail.com wrote: >On Jan 27, 12:56 pm, John Nagle <na...(a)animats.com> wrote: >>Arguably, Python 3 has been rejected by the market. > >No it's not fathomably arguable, because there's no reasonable way >that Python 3 could have fully replaced Python 2 so quickly. > >At best, you could reasonably argue there hasn't been enough time to >tell. >> Instead, there's >>now Python 2.6, Python 2.7, and Python 2.8. > >It was always the plan to continue developing Python 2.x alongside >Python 3.x during the transition period. > >Last I heard, don't remember where, the plan was for Python 2.7 to be >the last version in the Python 2 line. If that's true, Python 3 >acceptance is further along at this point than anticipated, since they >originally thought they might have to go up to 2.9. This assumes that the decision to stop making new 2.x releases is based on Python 3 adoption, rather than on something else. As far as I can tell, it's based on the personal desire of many of the core developers to stop bothering with 2.x. In other words, it's more a gauge of adoption of Python 3 amongst Python core developers. Jean-Paul
From: Mensanator on 27 Jan 2010 17:24
On Jan 27, 2:56 pm, John Nagle <na...(a)animats.com> wrote: > Daniel Fetchinson wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths > > periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the > > posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply are > > not aware of the facts. > > > My list is surely incomplete, please feel free to post your favorite > > misconception about python 3 that people periodically state, claim or > > ask about. > > Myths about Python 3: > > 1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions. > > FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best. So? I use Mac OSX 10.6, not Linux. And that comes with 2.6. Nothing stopped me from adding 3.1. > > 2. Python 3 is supported by multiple Python implementations. > > FALSE - Only CPython supports 3.x. Iron Python, Unladen Swallow, > PyPy, and Jython have all stayed with 2.x versions of Python. So? I only use CPython. > > 3. Python 3 is supported by most 3rd party Python packages. > > FALSE - it's not supported by MySQLdb, OpenSSL, feedparser, etc. So? The only 3rd party module I use is gmpy, and that's been updated to 3.x. > > Arguably, Python 3 has been rejected by the market. Instead, there's > now Python 2.6, Python 2.7, and Python 2.8. Python 3 has turned into > a debacle like Perl 6, now 10 years old. > > That's the reality, Python 3 fanboys. Maybe in *your* world. I'm perfectly happy in my world using 3.1. > > John Nagle |