On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 1:51:35 AM UTC-6, John Ladasky wrote: Reguarding a migration from Python2 to Pyhton3, John said: > I had to wait until my favorite packages were ported > (numpy, scipy, matplotlib, pandas).
WxPython is not ported either, much to my chagrin. > But once that happened, I moved from Py2 to Py3 years ago > with scarcely a bump, bruise, or scratch. So you have no Python2.x code remaining in your repos? Are you telling us that you moved *EVERYTHING* to Python3? If so, i can't imagine how something like that would even be possible, hmm, unless of course, you don't have much code to move...? I could imagine that *IF* someone's entire Python repo consisted of a couple hundred (or less) small scripts, with few, or no, dependencies, such a migration would be relatively easy. But even though i've only been writing Python code for a handful of years, my repo consists of thousands of scripts, millions of lines of code, and many, *MANY* dependencies -- because after all, DRY is very important, yes? (That reminds me, i need to write a script to compile some statistics on these files...) > I like lazy evaluation. Well, it is a "Pythonic feature" no doubt. And I'll admit, many of the changes are "good changes". But they are not good enough to risk blowing up millions of lines of code, John. And what will i gain if i did? Nothing. There are *NO* new features to offer my users, and even the features that *WOULD* improve my coding experiences, are not enough to warrant the misery.Heck, almost all of these festures i could implement myself. What's easier: migrating millions of lines into a hostile environment just so i can gain a few new functionalities, or writing a few lines to bring the needed functionalities to *ME*? I don't need, nor do i want, *EVERYTHING* that Python3 brings to the table. > I think that Unicode handling is vastly improved (and yes, > I'm fully aware that exactly two people in this newsgroup > don't agree, they make sure we all know). I have > encountered few surprises, and nothing that makes my job > harder. Well John, not everyone is going to experience the same "level of onerous" when they port their code over to Python3. Perhaps your case is unique. And there is no way for myself, or anyone one else, to make an objective judgment, without looking at the breath and depth of the code you had to migrate. Perhaps you don't have a lot of dependencies. Perhaps you have not engineered "feature-rich libraries". Perhaps you have have not written code that is on the bleeding edge, or pushed your mental power to it's extremes. Perhaps your code style is to "play it safe". Perhaps you're scripts consist mostly of simple maintenance and utilities. So even if you "believe" that the migration from Python2.x to Python3.x is smooth, you're only able to make that judgment relative to own *PERSONAL* experience, with your own *PERSONAL* library. So even though there is only two people in this group who don't care for Pyhton Unicode handling (hey, your stats, not mine!), there is only *ONE* of you who can judge the level of onerous required to migrate *YOUR* code! Until you make the depth and breath of you repo publicly view-able, your opinion is just that -- an *OPINION*! As for me, I've written vast libraries over the top of wxPython and Tkinter. I've extended existing functionality, added new functionality, and created a more consistent and intuitive API than either library could have dreamed. I've spent many long hours debugging, testing, and perfecting these libraries, and so far, they work very nicely. Heck, my refactored Tkinter API, and IDLE editor, is leaps and bounds ahead of anything Python3 could manage to do. And it's a shame too, because these two libraries are among some of the oldest and most neglected of all. But now i'm faced with a tough choice: (1) I could attempt to migrate all these libraries, and risk mountains of subtle bugs echoing down the inheritance/dependency chains, or (2) I could leave the code where it is, and milk-it until the majority of OS's will no longer run Python2. JUST FYI: I'M GOING WITH CHOICE NUMBER TWO! Why? Because only a fool would risk "exception hell" on code that has been stable for a reasonable amount of time. Ever heard the expression: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? Well my code ain't broke, and until it becomes broken, my time would be better spent forging new paths, instead of flogging the old ones like dead, quadrupedaled, "beasts of burden"! > To be sure, people who are entrenched in the Py2 way of > doing things, with a lot of legacy code, have some work to > do -- on their code, and possibly on their brains. Your "veiled ad hominem" is not justified John.With that statement, you've just insulted well over half of the Python community -- and the "better half", i might add! You're talking about people who have been coding python, and many other languages, probably long before you were even born! I'm not as "curmudgeonly" as some folks around here, but i'm no "spring chicken" either. Hurling personal attack just because people don't gush over your beloved Pyhton3 is a low-blow. > Keep Py2 if you want it, then. You still have a few more > years before the PSF stops maintaining it. If you really > like it that much, why not maintain it yourself? I don't need Python3. And i reckon that by the time i do, something more interesting will come along, or, i'll create something more interesting myself. i've been drafting, and dreaming, of a new language spec for over a year now.. And the best thing about starting a new language, you can do anything you want... no dependencies! -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list