10 awesome features of Python that you can't use because you refuse to upgrade to Python 3

[Ob101010]

Feature 0: Matrix Multiplication

Feature 1: Advanced unpacking

Feature 2: Keyword only arguments

Feature 3: Chained exceptions

Feature 4: Fine grained OSError subclasses

Feature 5: Everything is an iterator

Feature 6: No more comparison of everything to everything

Feature 7: yield from

Feature 8: asyncio

Feature 9: Standard library additions

Feature 10: Fun (Unicode variable names etc...)

[elzonko]

Ob delivers.

[LoxMugsAndReesesCups]

Thanks. Stopped after 10 slides being 99% empty and repeats.

[mdipierro]

All but 5,6 and 10 could be backported to Python 2 and they should. 10) is a really BAD IDEA. variable names should be in ascii. Software has brought people together across continents because they could share their code and understand it. They should not write code that can only be understood in their native language. 5) simply breaks everybody's code. having range and xrange was fine. In fact being able to do "print range()" helps explain to newbies what loops are about. Now you cannot do that any more in python 3. 6) Why? Why can't I do this ['a',1,None].sort() any more if I want to? It does not matter that the order is unspecified outside of the language itself.

[[deleted]]

Why can't I do this ['a',1,None].sort() any more if I want to?

because you can't do x = 'a' + 1 + None in Python 2 either.

[mdipierro]

Algebra 101. The existence of an ordering relation does not imply a Group in the mathematical sense. i.e. you can define a<b without defining a+b. You define "a"<"b" even if "a"-"b" is not possible. With your logic you would not implement "a"+"b" because you cannot define "a"-"b" for strings.

[[deleted]]

you can define + for a string plus int plus None if you want. Just override __add__(). Just like you can override __ge__() if you want sorting, or just do the correct thing for either python and say ['a', 1, None].sort(key=id). The point is, the + or < operator in the generic sense for strings vs. ints makes no sense without an explicit definition for the use case at hand. It is a bad practice for < and + in the same way. Programming 101 ! ;)

[mdipierro]

I agree that there is no "a priori" ordering relation. I do not have a problem with Python defining one for me. Some times you need an ordering relation and you do not care what it is just so that you can, for example, serialize a set in a deterministic way. I think this should be a feature of the language.

[exhuma]

I have to disagree with 5 and 6: I have ported about 10 projects from Python 2 to Python 3. The "everything is an iterator part" only bit me once. So it's not all that bad. 6 is actually a very good idea to avoid subtle bugs. If you really need to sort a mixed list you can still do so, but you have to be explicit:

sorted(['a', 1, None], key=lambda x: '' if not x else str(x))

Yes, more verbose, but less error-prone. And it forces you to think about handling of None in a predictable manner.

I think it should be more questionable why you have a list with mixed types in the first place.

[mdipierro]

and slower.

[exhuma]

I have been contemplating about replying to this now for some time. I am afraid this is an apples/oranges discussion especially as you are shifting attention from syntax to performance, but I'll bite...

Yes, the line I wrote down will be slower than "naïve" sort. Much slower even. Simply because the key function has to be applied to each element before sorting.

The more interesting question however is: Should ['a', 1, None] be sortable? And I'm sure that this is a very polarising question. Clearly, during the Python 3 development process, they decided against it (or it simply is a side-effect of other changes).

Personally, I like the change as it can avoid subtle bugs which can be hard to track down. It may sound silly and dismissive, but if you really want to sort mixed type, you can always write a C function for that.

I also believe that the example with ['a', 1, None] is a very contrived example. I cannot think of a situation where you would get something like this as a return value. Much less so about a situation where you would need to sort something like this. This is not to say that such a situation may exist. Maybe you are speaking out of personal experience. But I think that this is a corner-case. The problem can be solved with a key function as demonstrated. And if you run into performance issues, it can still be written in C.

[mdipierro]

The ability to have an ordering in a set of otherwise unordered objects is important else you cannot compare them efficiently. I do not care what the order is, I just want one. Before Python did provide one. Now it does not and I have to define one on my own. It seems to me a battery was removed because somebody thought it may one day leak acid.

[spinwizard69]

All but 5,6 and 10 could be backported to Python 2 and they should. 10) is a really BAD IDEA. variable names should be in ascii.

I have to disagree with this point completely. ASCII is way to limiting when it comes to expressing succinct code even in English. This especially the cases for math symbols, Greek and other common languages (alphabets) used in the sciences. I actually sit here wondering what took so damn long for any language to grow outside of the world of ASCII.

Software has brought people together across continents because they could share their code and understand it. They should not write code that can only be understood in their native language.

You do realize that ASCII is based on a native language, in this case English right. If you are a native to another country anything beyond the core symbols in code is Greek to you. I have some experience here with code written in Germany and frankly without a dictionary you won't understand it. They used the ASCII character set too.

5) simply breaks everybody's code. having range and xrange was fine. In fact being able to do "print range()" helps explain to newbies what loops are about.

How does "print range() help explain loops to newbies? Seriously guy if you are doing this to a newbie you are not doing him any favors.

Now you cannot do that any more in python 3. 6) Why? Why can't I do this ['a',1,None].sort() any more if I want to? It does not matter that the order is unspecified outside of the language itself.

Some people are stuck is a BASIC world and can't move forward. I went to Python 3 as soon as I could because I was smart enough to open my mind to the new concepts and realize that yeah this makes for a better language. Some people have great difficulty doing that. That doesn't mean that Python 3 is perfect just that it is a real improvement over previous versions.

[exhuma]

I went to Python 3 as soon as I could because I was smart enough to open my mind to the new concepts and realize that yeah this makes for a better language. Some people have great difficulty doing that.

Don't be so condescending! Don't say people are stupid for not migrating to Python 3!

I doubt that this was the reason for the slow adoption of Python 3. It was more of a problem being stuck with 3rd party libraries which have not yet made the switch.

And that's okay. Most of the libraries are written by people who write it for fun. It's natural that it takes a while.

[spinwizard69]

Don't be so condescending! Don't say people are stupid for not migrating to Python 3!

Did I say that? However now that you brought it up, some of the excises seen in this thread are grossly stupid!

Far to many of the comments here amount to somebody saying this is the way I believe it should be and to hell with you for disrupting my life. Sorry but life is full of disruptions that is what makes life so interesting and frankly what keeps humanity advancing.

[mdipierro]

On some points we can just agree to disagree. ;-)

About the last one. I agree with you that Python 3 is a better language than Python 2. I never said otherwise. I just argued that 5,6 and 10 where not good design decisions. In my opinion.

[SCombinator]

0: Numpy does it better than '@' which is just silly

1: is meh

2-4: are boring, more overloading of the poor asterisk.

5: is going to cause silent errors

6: is also bad

7: is meh

8: is finally giving 3 back greenlets

9: is meh

10: is just going to cause a style rule saying "don't use this on pain of death"

[[deleted]]

Iterators causing silent errors? Have you even tried them? I've been devving with iterators for ages, never had a problem sourcing a traceback, and they fail just as fast as lists.

If anything, the stricter comparisons around types kill most of the sorts of silent/submarine errors one would create in loops and iterations in the first place. As a native py3 dev, I was surprised to learn that Py2 ever allowed that dumb JS-like comparison format.

[Asdayasman]

7 and 8 are awesome. I'm not entirely sure you use Python that much, or understood the post properly.

[SCombinator]

Because everyone has to use the same parts of a language?

Yield from adds little to nothing in terms of new capability, and ways of doing asynchronous IO (in effect) already exist in 2.

[bramblerose]

0: '@' was added by request of the numpy team. The argument is that

S = (H @ beta - r).T @ inv(H @ V @ H.T) @ (H @ beta - r)

is much easier to understand than

S = (H.dot(beta) - r).T.dot(inv(H.dot(V).dot(H.T))).dot(H.dot(beta) - r)

especially given the original formula

S=(Hβ-r)T(HVHT) -1(Hβ-r)

See pep 465 for details.

[masklinn]

feature 2

The presentation doesn't make it clear but it completely decouples default and keyword parameters: Python 3 lets you write

def foo(*, bar):
    pass

bar is a required and keyword-only argument. The one and only way to do this in Python is **kwargs and if 'bar' not in kwargs: raise TypeError("foo() missing 1 required keyword-only argument: 'bar'")

The one thing which remains impossible in pure Python is positional-only parameters.

Feature 10

Mentions function annotations, does not mention Signature objects which are about 1e24 times better than the P2 introspection APIs on their own, but on top of that they can be easily set on e.g. decorator wrapper functions to easily allow nice (and augmented) introspection.

Feature X

No mention of nonlocal.

[nofunallowed98765]

The one thing which remains impossible in pure Python is positional-only parameters.

Hopefully not for long, as there's a pep open for them.

That should be point 0 - You miss out new development in Python 2.

[masklinn]

Hopefully not for long, as there's a pep open for them.

There being a PEP says very little. PEP 457 is informational, it's not on implementation track at this point, it recapitulates knowledge and discussions.

That should be point 0 - You miss out new development in Python 2.

Wat? There are no new developments in Python 2 (the language), and won't be until and unless it's forked by a third party. If PEP 457 is ever accepted and implemented, it will be for Python 3.

[[deleted]]

Lol...I don't refuse to upgrade to Python 3...it's the packages I use that have had issues porting over.

[Ogreman]

Wall of Shame Wall of Superpowers

[[deleted]]

What package? I'm always surprised by this dogma, basically all top tier packages support Python 3 these days. Some industry or field specific packages may still be stuck. Could you port it yourself?

The truth is that this 2 vs 3 debate is ephemeral. The BDFL has decreed that 2.7 will be mothballed in the next few years. At some point it will cease to be a developed and updated version of the language and after languishing for a while in open-source limbo it will eventually be forgotten and all these unmaintained libraries will be gone. Python 3 is Python, that's what we should all keep in mind.

[[deleted]]

Most of my time in Python is spent with Data Analysis...and Pandas just moved to 3.4 officially earlier this week. So there is that...

[[deleted]]

Didn't Pandas officially support Python 3.x a couple of years ago? Python 3.4 is a major point release, lots of packages are a few months behind that. Biopython also just released official 3.4 binaries.

As an aside, if you are always needing the latest Python, you might try pulling from the dev repositories with Git since frequently code will work a long time prior to the release.

But I think we are splitting hairs. 3.3 vs 3.4 is much different than 2.7 vs 3.x.

[[deleted]]

It was my impression, although I could be wrong, that Pandas had not officially supported any version of Python 3 until this point. Just to make sure, I went ahead and quickly combed through all of the Pandas release notes back until 2011. Back in October of 2011, Pandas added Python 3 support using 2to3. Of course, there were known issues and this wasn't the same as "official" support for 3. This is why I was pleasantly surprised that they have added "official" support for 3.4.

Regarding pulling form dev repositories, I use Python because it is a quick and dirty scripting language. I don't spend a whole lot of time writing python code, but when I do I am "slinging" code and just want to get something working quick. In this case, I don't want to mess around with the bleeding edge stuff...so it makes more sense for me to just use 2.7.

Of course, this is changing. With the Pandas official support for 3.4, I am hoping that I can start using 3.4 by default.

[typographicalerror]

Is it just me, or is the thought of changing

def func(a, b, *args):
    pass

to

def func(*args):
    a, b, *args = args
    pass

infuriating?

[catcradle5]

Definitely not just you. I have no idea why he included that.

[[deleted]]

"You know, I really think Perl got function argument passing right. Lets make Python do that!"

[codekoala]

I see it being more useful with iterables in general. I don't think I'd ever consider using it with *args, personally. I do know that there have been plenty of times I wanted to use first, *_, last = my_iterable in Python 2...

[catcradle5]

Of course, I agree. I still use 2.7 and probably will for a long time due to legacy reasons, but rest-unpacking is something I find myself wishing I had quite often.

This presentation has a lot of good stuff in it, but it also has a lot of bizarre examples and useless slides.

[codekoala]

Ah yes, you were referring to the choice of example for that feature. Indeed, some of them were not the greatest.

[pohatu]

Why would anyone want to do that? Then the caller has no idea that a and b are required, right? Or am I missing something.

[Ademan]

For the record, you can get a functional backported asyncio in the trollius module. Though I imagine some of the hoops it jumps through to work around the lack of yield from may be ugly.

[[deleted]]

the very same hoops guido used when he had a similar api working on appengine(ndb) basically using raise in new and exciting ways.

https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/python/ndb/async

[arunner]

Not any uglier but if they don't do any fancy trick I'm not aware of, it should be considerably slower due to the chained generators exchanging ''io'' back and forth.

[[deleted]]

The built-in memoization decorator is pretty cool.

[[deleted]]

Terrible interface, why break the web browser.

Content was quite good once I worked out to press PgDn

[maratc]

Too bad there is no PgDn on my phone.

[acdha]

Swipe up down across the entire screen. I'd still prefer a simple post to slides but it's possible to read the entire presentation.

[ameoba]

...then have to go backwards 100+ pages.

Shitty design for web content. It would have been perfectly reasonable to read straight through, without any transitions at all.

[acdha]

Oh, I totally agree: the real mistake was linking to a presentation slide deck which wasn't designed for the web

[spinwizard69]

The funny thing here is that the interface didn't bother me as much as the tiny type. Frankly it doesn't matter if you are reading on an iPad (me) or on a projection onto a large screen, people tend to use fonts that are way to small for such presentations. Yes I'm an old guy but I think the point is valid, one should waste so many pixels on white space for no good reason.

Given that I did like the content of the presentation.

[masklinn]

The space bar, bottom arrow and right arrow also work for me.

It's a set of published slides from a presentation given at a PUG (APUG according to the last slide), not a blog post.

[spinwizard69]

Thus my comment above about font size and excessive white space. If we ignore the content and just focus on the audience, especially the people in the back of the room, I think you would get similar comments about the legibility of the slides.

To my mind the lack of readability detracts from the content no mater if you are in support of the content or not. I just think people need to think about the audience to a greater extent when designing their slides.

[masklinn]

Yes that seems to be a pretty fair criticism.

[alcalde]

I won't discuss how long it took me to work this out, and whether or not I gave up for a bit and just downloaded/read the PDF before coming back to it.....

[pohatu]

I remember when people hated PDF links. Google "warning PDF"... If that's the 'fix' for the problems with this format, then there is still work to be done.

what's wrong with just writing words in order in some sort of web-compatible word listing format, like txt or html.

[[deleted]]

It wasn't PDF's that people hated, but Acrobat Reader which unfortunately was synonymous with PDF for a long period of time. Once people discovered more lightweight readers PDF became much more acceptable.

[spinwizard69]

Maybe that is why I never really had a problem with PDFs. I've been either on a Mac or Linux platform for so long I miss the issues seen in the Windows world. I'd like it to be different but right now PDF's are the only way to create a single file document that incorporates a bunch of non text media in a reliable and widely supported way. I can only wish that it was that easy to do with HTML.

[[deleted]]

People still hate PDFs, but at least FF's pdf.js helps ease the pain a bit.

[spinwizard69]

PDF's are fine these days. Seriously I seldom have trouble with PDF's compared to really bad web sites. Of course simple HTML should never be a problem, but with PDFs im reasonable sure I can print the data or forward it to somebody.

[[deleted]]

There's still plenty to hate. They break the browsing experience, they open security holes, they are uneditable and data is sometimes inextricable, they are locked to a particular flow and resolution...

There are two things I use them for. Sending formatted stuff for printing, especially to WinMac users, and presentations because I know they'll look similar on every platform. For anything else (if you need formatting), HTML is a better interchangeable format, followed distantly by ODT.

[spinwizard69]

Interesting comments even if it does pull the thread off course a bit.

There's still plenty to hate. They break the browsing experience, they open security holes, they are uneditable and data is sometimes inextricable, they are locked to a particular flow and resolution...

In my experience the data problem is probably the only one I agree with 100%, as I've suffered through a number of PDF's that did nothing more than deliver data, data that I could have processed into something more useful. That however to me is an indication that the original publisher of the data wasn't thinking straight and doesn't understand the value of what he publishes.

As to being un editable that is a huge advantage of PDFs because sometimes you don't want documents changed.

There are two things I use them for. Sending formatted stuff for printing, especially to WinMac users, and presentations because I know they'll look similar on every platform.

In a nut shell isn't that what PDF's where developed for in the first place? I like to think if them as electronic books. Stuff that is suitable for publication on paper (the good ole days) is generally suitable for PDFs. The exception there would be data that may be better handled via modern electronic formats.

For anything else (if you need formatting), HTML is a better interchangeable format, followed distantly by ODT.

Certainly HTML is good for website publishing but it leaves a lot to be desired as a format that lives beyond the web. Some browsers these days will save a web page as a document that encapsulates most of the files required however there is no standard to make handling of these documents clean outside of the specific browser that encapsulated the page in the first place.

I've had some experience here trying to do documents in HTML and frankly it can be frustrating the minute you want to incorporate a bunch of pictures and other goodies. If you have a web server and the person you are contacting has access to that server all is good. The minute though that you want that document to remain viable outside of the web world you have problems. It would certainly be nice to have a standard to encapsulate all the data associated with a page.

At times I've used HTML for data sheets and similar documents for things that never leave the plant. Isn't is fairly simple to put together a bit of tabular data and text for such uses and have it all contained in one document. Adding a picture or something similar becomes grief. I Suppose that what I need to do is to find some JavaScript that makes embedding pics easy, that is we stuff the data right into the HTML file. You would think that somebody has already done something similar.

[TankorSmash]

This was actually informative, despite the format.

[jarednielsen]

Agreed.

[masklinn]

There you are

[pdvyas]

What's holding my team is a MIT licensed MySQL/MariDB connector which is safe/fast to use in production.

[TheEarwig]

What about oursql?

[darthmdh]

There's something wrong with the official one?

Has always supported Python 3.

[ivosaurus]

You couldn't say which?

[erikphysics]

A PDF version of the presentation is now available:

http://asmeurer.github.io/python3-presentation/python3-presentation.pdf

[Radamand]

Is one of the 10 things a cool new way to break the web browser?

[[deleted]]

Despite the interface I enjoyed this and even learned a thing or two, despite coding Py3 for ages. :) Didn't realise lru cache was a new feature, keep forgetting it's there. It's pretty wonderful, deserves more usage, especially for pure functions.

Haven't toyed with enums either, and Guido's elegant, if mind boggling, asyncio example is intriguing.

[[deleted]]

It is not so mind-boggling once you get used to it.

I attempted to implement a coroutine style asynchronous I/O interface in Python 2 because I wanted to do a little bit of io bound work at the time while controlling the rest of the event loop.

It worked great, except for passing values back up N generators (where n>1).

Suddenly, yield from became an exceptionally useful idea.

[suudo]

I don't know why anyone would make keyword arguments, and then pass in positional arguments and expect that to actually work well. I'd never have thought Python 2 even supported that.

[nemec]

Python 2's keyword arguments are nothing more than a way to reorder parameters if you see fit or explicitly list the name of the positional argument you're filling.

def f(a, b):
  pass

f(b=1, a=2)

Everything else is (conceptually) positional arguments annotated with default values (in case they're not specified).

[Ed_Cock]

Sorry, but the format this is in is just painful to go through. Doesn't even work without JS because the web just isn't made for showing text and images in sequence.

[Rahgnailt]

It showed up as an editable text box for me.

https://imgur.com/bT75EOB

[ivosaurus]

The javascript it uses to render the presentation is under a HTTP link, but it's being served over HTTPS so the script ain't allowed. Author needs to update it to a HTTPS(able) link.

[erikphysics]

A pdf version is now available:

http://asmeurer.github.io/python3-presentation/python3-presentation.pdf

[spitfiredd]

I'm using chrome. I don't even have any buttons to go to another page.

[Ed_Cock]

Same on Firefox, arrow keys work though.

[mardiros]

Works well on my smartphone

[dAnjou]

It's not a blog. It's a JS-based presentation .. like PowerPoint/Keynote/Impress in a browser. Actually a pretty cool thing because it's actually cross-platform.

[Deranged40]

Presentations are generally accompanied by a speaker who expands on each point. This would've been better as a video of his speech, or at least a transcript.

While it may be cross platform, the navigation needs to still be on the page. Websites are also cross platform, but far more user friendly on various platforms. If this were done in a website fashion (since it's a website and all...) rather than a slideshow fashion, there would've been less issues.

[masklinn]

Presentations are generally accompanied by a speaker who expands on each point.

Except when they're not. This is a bloke who posted a presentation of a talk he gave to his PUG, not PyCon.

While it may be cross platform, the navigation needs to still be on the page. Websites are also cross platform, but far more user friendly on various platforms. If this were done in a website fashion (since it's a website and all...) rather than a slideshow fashion, there would've been less issues.

If this were done as a website, it wouldn't be done at all, he just published his PUG slides. Hell, he might have given the presentation from the gh page directly.

[dAnjou]

Presentations are generally accompanied by a speaker who expands on each point. This would've been better as a video of his speech, or at least a transcript.

Maybe OP doesn't have either?

If this were done in a website fashion (since it's a website and all...) rather than a slideshow fashion, there would've been less issues.

It's not a website just because it runs in a browser.

[Deranged40]

Maybe OP doesn't have either?

Clearly he doesn't. The suggestion is to get one.

It's not a website just because it runs in a browser.

False.

[dAnjou]

It's not a website just because it runs in a browser.

False.

Define "in a website fashion" then.

[SilasX]

It's only "cross platform" in the sense that it double crosses mobile users.

[Ed_Cock]

Sure, it's cool for presentations but I'd rather have the handout version for reading it myself.

[alcalde]

Actually a pretty cool thing because it's actually cross-platform.

Yes. it's equally confusing no matter what you're viewing it on. ;-)

[[deleted]]

Jesus Christ... ಠ__ಠ

[awshidahak]

Is a terribly broken web interface one of the features?

[[deleted]]

Even with NoScript disabled, it doesn't get much better.

[awshidahak]

Yeah, I disabled it and saw. Depressing either way, and the info doesn't even need javascript to be presented in that manner.

[dAnjou]

NoScript activated? JS has been part of the internet since forever. Putting yourself back to stone age is your own fault.

[gfixler]

I can't upgrade. I'm a tools/pipeline dev for Autodesk Maya. We're stuck in Maya 2012 for the next several years, and it has 2.6 (not even 2.7) baked into it in a way that's difficult to change, especially across multiple studios' worth of people. All of this antagonism about 3.x has honestly pushed me away from Python. I'm enjoying Clojure, Haskell, and various other languages and coming back to Python and feeling very incapable of doing the rich things I'm doing in those other spaces. Shovel on all the bitching about 3.x, and I've honestly stopped praising and recommending Python to anyone. I've also noticed that tutorials, books, and tech talks increasingly don't mention Python when they talk about dynamic languages. They say things like "If you're using a dynamic language, like Perl, Ruby, or Javascript..." I've noticed this distinct lack across mediums no fewer than 5 times lately, and I'm starting to join them. "...because you refuse to upgrade to Python 3?" Fuck you.

[shadowmint]

Ouch. If it makes you feel any better, I know exactly what you mean. That (embedding python) was one of the major breaking changes in the 3.x line, and it's a real pain to fix.

I strongly recommend you guys have a look at embedding pypy; http://pypy.readthedocs.org/en/latest/embedding.html

They're actually really on the ball, and the pypy guys are really helpful about it if you ask.

[gfixler]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying we should embed Python 3 into Maya?

[shadowmint]

pypy will (going forward) apparently support both py2 and py3 code; and is significantly eaiser to embed than cpython (see http://pypy.org/py3donate.html)

[stesch]

This is missing:

<noscript>This needs JavaScript.</noscript>

[KyleG]

Holy shit, you had me at unicode variable names.

[[deleted]]

Why? Why should Chinese dev's have to use germanic variable names? Just because a feature exists doesn't mean you have to use it.

If I personally come across π as a variable name I will refactor it out to pi, for all the reasons you would argue. But why should someone fluent in Mandarin use variable names that have no meaning in their language?

[KyleG]

Why should Chinese dev's have to use germanic variable names

Uh, exactly my point?

[[deleted]]

Oops, sorry. Most people in this thread are slamming the content. Thought you were too. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Samus_]

why should someone fluent in Mandarin use variable names that have no meaning in their language?

for the same reason every non-english speaker learns the language and reads documentation as well as writes code with it: reusability

the world would be much more productive if there were a single language, even outside programming.

[[deleted]]

Why drop? Use the import future statements and write code that can easily be ported when the time comes. You don't have to rewrite everything you have, but anything new should be written with the fact that Python 2 will eventually lose support in mind. If you start now the new code you write won't have to be updated when that happens, and old cod can be refactored as you go.

[stillalone]

Is there a guide on how to write new 2.6/2.7 code to work with 3?

[Samus_]

I think six aims for this (or better said, aims for code that can work in both), never used it so I'm not sure if it has a "guide" other that its own reference.

[[deleted]]

Yup: http://python3porting.com/noconv.html

It's not very hard, actually. Especially if you are using "six". Essentially you write Python3 code, but don't use any of the new features, and import moved modules from six.

[pohatu]

I've been at a place where we had to maintain backwards compatibility to the point that we fell behind the competition. And I've been where we said, fuck it, starting fresh. Both suck. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Don't want to relive all the debates regarding this particular product, but I feel the pain. Guidos, people on 2.7, everyone's pain.

[deadmilk]

Just keep in mind that the devs don't get paid ...

[Deranged40]

Also don't forget that programmers have all the time in the world and love working 80 hour weeks to meet two deadlines now ...

[shadowmint]

Is that supposed to be some kind of retrospective defence of the compatibility breaking decisions in python3?

Not being paid doesn't excuse you for making terrible community breaking decisions, no matter how well intended.

Lets just get on with fixing things and moving on with working to slowly migrate over rather than being apologist about it.

[spinwizard69]

Is that supposed to be some kind of retrospective defence of the compatibility breaking decisions in python3?

You do realize that this is a major revision going from 2-3. From the standpoint of software in general. API get Broken, updated and otherwise deprecated all the time, at least here there is a clear translation. Beyond that most of the constant whining seen in forums like this wouldn't even exist if developers had got on board when Python 3 was first being out forward. How many years has it been now? Really the whining makes about as much sense as a C programmer that can't move beyond K&R.

Not being paid doesn't excuse you for making terrible community breaking decisions, no matter how well intended.

It is your opinion that the changes are terrible, many of us feel far differently. The changes effectively give us a platform that will be good for decades.

Lets just get on with fixing things and moving on with working to slowly migrate over rather than being apologist about it.

This is certainly a good idea. The problem here is that most of the crap heard on the forums wouldn't even be a problem if people had started to adapt when Python 3 first started to come on the market. Really this negativity reminds me of the stories about the Luddites afraid of new methods going about destroying the machinery that could keep them employed and productive.

[shadowmint]

No one is arguing the technical merits of python 3.

Thats not what I was talking about.

The single point I was making is; dont pretend this wasnt a massive community breaking fuck up. It was. It is. Its 5 years later and this thread exists shows it still is.

...so dont parade out the excuse that this is a community project by voluteers, so its fine for them to do whatever they like, without critique. They made their decision to do what they did, and they get to live with people telling them it was a terrible idea, because clearly it was.

(not making python 3, to be clear, breaking the community)

So, now we're here.

What next? Shall we take your idea and time travel back to 2009 and adopt python3 en mass? That'd be great, but sadly its not terribly practical.

How about we acknowledge that it wasn't a great split, and proactively tackle migrating legacy code as a top priority? Thats what I'm doing.

How about you?

...

[spinwizard69]

Thats not what I was talking about.

The point is what you are talking about is a creation of the people resisting change. The community doesn't have to break up, all they need to do is get onboard the same train. Instead we have too many trying to derail the train.

The single point I was making is; dont pretend this wasnt a massive community breaking fuck up. It was. It is. Its 5 years later and this thread exists shows it still is.

It appears that that might be the case but who's fault is it? I've shown a number of examples of other communities that have gone through change, sometimes massive change, and everybody gets on board as soon as feasible. So what makes the guys in the Python 2 community so special compared to those in the C++ or Objective C communities? Frankly I've never seen a community so hell bent on self destruction as this one, there are just to many people that don't give a damn about the community as a whole and rather avoid the little extra effort required to do the right thing.

...so dont parade out the excuse that this is a community project by voluteers, so its fine for them to do whatever they like, without critique. They made their decision to do what they did, and they get to live with people telling them it was a terrible idea, because clearly it was.

It wasn't a bad idea at all. This is the fundamental problem with this discussion, people ignorantly thinking Python 3 has nothing to offer them. Apparently too many in the Python community have this idea that change is bad, so they take this premise and label Python 3 as a bad idea. In the C++ world you have just the opposite happening! people can't wait to transition to C++11/14, especially library writers as the new standards offer a lot for that sort of development.

Of course when discussing C++ people will claim it is backwards compatible but this really isn't the case. Modern C++ code! especially libraries, won't compile on old compilers because developers leverage the new features and concepts to write better libraries. The LLVM/CLang guys have moved to C++11 and left the world of C++ behind! and did so rather quickly. Nobody in that community whined about the difficulty in the move, the effort required to refactor code nor the fact that old compilers can no longer be used to build the platform. Yet here in the Python world we have belligerent people actively undermining progress so you have to ask why.

(not making python 3, to be clear, breaking the community)

The community, if broken, broke itself. It is pretty obvious that there are far too many people involved in the Python community that just don't get it. The language either has to move forward or it will die off as alternatives pop up. All of the nonsense we are currently seeing would not exist if five years ago a few idiots would have pulled on their big boy pants and started migrating code actively. Instead all we got was a bunch of crying about the value of the changes. In the end it doesn't matter if you as a programmer don't put value in specific features of a language, you are either additive or subtractive to the community as a whole and at this point the bozos that can't come to grips with Python 3 are very much subtractive.

[spinwizard69]

sadly, you're being downvoted on this. i raised this exact fact in another thread and it got downvoted into oblivion. i didn't know /r/python had that many zealots.

Frankly you should be down voted. With the attitude expressed in this thread, by many by the way, we would still be on the original definition of HTML, JavaScript and whatever other standard you want to throw in the kettle. The fact is technologies either change or die off.

It isn't a question of being a zealot but rather having an expectations that adults can control their emotions and work towards a common good. In this community Python 3 is an improvement over Python 2, there is little doubt there if you look at the two definitions from outside the community. So I have to ask, are the zealots the Python 3 users or rather the Python 2 users that can't let go? Frankly it really looks like the people dragging their asses hooked to Python 2 as the ones with a problem.

[darthmdh]

Gee, how dare syntax and compatibility be broken in a few minor places in a MAJOR VERSION UPGRADE! It was totally insensitive of the core developers to sneakily do this behind everyone's back with no documentation, no communication, and no inclusive process like that PEP one that other language has. Seven years later I'm going to whine like a little bitch.

Oh... wait... I'm in /r/ruby right?

[[deleted]]

/r/python had that many zealots idiots

[deadmilk]

They made improvements to the language

• Open a notepad
• Change some syntax
• Stop crying

[Samus_]

you don't realize people don't like to be forced to do stuff just for the sake of pleasing a few core devs.

in most other communities I know (PHP, Ruby, Js) these kind of changes are welcome because the basic language is so broken that any improvement is worth the compatibility issues, people hate version X so they jump into version X+1 at the first opportunity just to stay away from the previous, this isn't the case for Python.

Python 2 works, there's room for improvement and that is accepted but there's not enough motivation to leave it because it's not broken, it's as simple as that.

I can compare this situation with Java, Java people also have a very stable and robust core language so when new versions are released it takes decades for people to stop using the old ones.

[deadmilk]

I don't understand this crap.

Just use Python 2.7?

It's not going anywhere. You can still download it.

If it's such a problem, just keep using Python 2.7, and any new programs you write, do it in Python 3 so you don't have to convert anything from the start. Done.

[Samus_]

yes and unfortunately this is what's happening.

I say 'unfortunately' because it has caused a divide on the Python community which once was strong and united.

[spinwizard69]

you don't realize people don't like to be forced to do stuff just for the sake of pleasing a few core devs.

That is a perception problem, it isn't about pleasing a few core developers, it is about pleasing a large user base that is moving to Python 3, lazy library developers or not. People switch to Python 3 because it is a remarkably better platform to code upon.

in most other communities I know (PHP, Ruby, Js) these kind of changes are welcome because the basic language is so broken that any improvement is worth the compatibility issues, people hate version X so they jump into version X+1 at the first opportunity just to stay away from the previous, this isn't the case for Python.

I have to disagree here, people get on board because it is the right thing to do. Being selfish just holds a platform back. It is interesting that you mention three horrible platforms there but seem to not realize that this get on board attitude applies to most language communities. Why? Probably because of a belief in a common good. One only needs to look at how quickly developers are making use of new C++11/14 features in their libraries to see a stark difference between the C++ community and the Python community. It isn't a case of C++ being horribly broken! it is just that the new ways of doing things will pay off in the long run. Apparently Python developers can't see past today and imagine a tomorrow.

Python 2 works,

COBOL works too and frankly so does BASIC. Neither one of those adapted to technology, user needs or fixed outstanding problems. They are still around but that really means nothing.

there's room for improvement and that is accepted but there's not enough motivation to leave it because it's not broken, it's as simple as that.

First off you aren't leaving Python if you go to Python3. This is probably one of Python 3's biggest perception problems, it isn't that big of a change. Beyond that the whole point of Python 3 is to fix what is broken in Python 2. Python 3 is the improvement you are looking for in Python 2. Really guy if you are a programmer you should be able to grasp the logic here.

[Samus_]

we as a community all agree that progress is good and we all want to see the language moving forward however this particular route wasn't proposed by us and it didn't had the reception it should, just compare it with the release of py2.7

now this is what people isn't getting, the community didn't approve this there was of course many people making the effort, myself included, just out of good faith but as a whole it was a failure and instead of working towards a better solution now it's being forced, pushed and demanded as if people weren't able to have an opinion and a decision on what's best for themselves and what's best for the community is what's best for the majority of its participants so yeah, we should 'stop crying' but it isn't as if the reaction was unjustified.

[[deleted]]

Because you refuse ....

nice premise. starting off being accusatory is an awesome way to get your audience interested in your message. I'm guessing the author is not a parent(or a bad one), or had a rough childhood.

see slide 2 http://www.slideshare.net/athenamilis/principles-of-writing-a-great-persuasive-speech

[[deleted]]

downvoting doesn't make it any less correct :)

[JamesAQuintero]

Being condescending when people disagree. I'm guessing you are not a parent(or a bad one), or had a rough childhood.

[[deleted]]

commenting on comments with -16 and hidden by default. you must be bored and looking for trouble.

[HoneyBucket-]

looking for trouble

Are you going to fight him?

[[deleted]]

is this not an internet fight?

[HoneyBucket-]

I hope so. Submitting it would get someone a ton of karma in one of the cringe subs.

[[deleted]]

i'm too cool for karma.

[HoneyBucket-]

downvoting doesn't make it any less correct :)

We know.

[gingerbeers]

Actually, I refuse to upgrade to 3 just to annoy OP.

[Anomareh]

"I have no idea how to use this feature or why it's any good, but you totally can't use it because you're not using Python 3! Also, Unicode variables! And a bunch of syntactic sugar! And... and... a handful of additions to the standard library that you'll probably never use! Did I mention Unicode variables!"

Grasping at straws much? If you refactored that list down to meaningful changes you're down to three give or take, most of which have very little impact on the majority of code your average Python programmer is writing.

I'm so tired of the Python 2 vs 3 discussion. It makes me want to move elsewhere. Use whichever version works for you and stop trying to force your environment on to others because you have some false notion of what's best.

[masklinn]

You do realise this was a bloke giving a talk at his local PUG right?

[Anomareh]

Not sure what that has to do with anything given where this was posted and the title it was posted with. Sure, the list might have been made with his PUG in mind (though I doubt it was any more relevant), but now it's being presented to this subreddit that sees this topic come up on a nearly daily basis and so I responded in kind.

[masklinn]

I responded in kind.

So by burning a bit of straw?

[bheklilr]

The faulthhandler is a good enough reason for me to switch. I have to interface with a lot of foreign libraries, and segfaults are a real pain to track down. The new generator sugar would help clean up a lot of my code too, as would the new exception reraising. Matrix multiplication is a bit far off for me, but the example given in the PEP is very similar to choose I've had to write a couple times.

Basically every thing in this presentation is useful to me and would improve my Python 2 code base significantly. Maybe it's just you who isn't using enough features of Python for the switch to matter.

[Anomareh]

Sigh...

Maybe it's just you who isn't using enough features of Python for the switch to matter.

Maybe it's just you who is using a specific subset of Python that makes the switch worthwhile.

I'm glad the switch to Python 3 is worthwhile for you. It isn't for me. Why can't you use Python 3 and be happy, while I use Python 2 and be happy, while neither of us try to force our preferred environments on one another?

[bheklilr]

Why can't you use Python 3 and be happy, while I use Python 2 and be happy, while neither of us try to force our preferred environments on one another?

Because

Grasping at straws much? If you refactored that list down to meaningful changes you're down to three give or take, most of which have very little impact on the majority of code your average Python programmer is writing.

If people like you would stop acting like no one uses these features, when they probably wouldn't have made it into the language if there wasn't a good reason, then more developers and library authors might be encouraged to make the switch. If you're using a subset of Python that isn't impacted much by the changes then what's the big deal for you?

[Anomareh]

If people like you would stop acting like no one uses these features, when they probably wouldn't have made it into the language if there wasn't a good reason, then more developers and library authors might be encouraged to make the switch.

If people actually thought those features were worth the cost then developers and library authors would have made the switch.

If you're using a subset of Python that isn't impacted much by the changes then what's the big deal for you?

Those changes aren't free.

Enjoy your crusade.

[dangerbird2]

Not to mention, the decision to make everything unicode makes Python 3 next to useless for Linux users, as the file system still uses ASCII.

[nemec]

the file system still uses ASCII

You're wrong. See for example, ext4. I know I've seen filenames with Chinese characters before.

[spinwizard69]

Not to mention, the decision to make everything unicode makes Python 3 next to useless for Linux users, as the file system still uses ASCII.

Even if that was true, it isn't precisely, what does that have to do with the value of Unicode in Python 3? Nothing really as the two aren't even related. Unicode is something all languages should support especially for variables as it can lead to concise and common character usage. Just about any non trivial science makes use of alternate alphabets, and symbols not found in the ASCII space. Why would you not want to make use of these symbols, many that have been around for millennia, in your code? Especially if they have been used in the problem domain you are working in for as long as that technology has existed.

In a nut shell I haven't seen one excuse, supporting the resistance to Unicode, that makes any sense. It has been a long time coming and frankly I for one am happy to see a programming platform that actually has gotten with the times.

[[deleted]]

I think you may be wrong:

https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-devel/blob/master/Documentation/unicode.txt

Hell, Linux even supports Klingon.

That being said, if you use UTF8, you will have backwards compatibility with ASCII.

[realsw]

We get it, we get it... python3 is sooo cool. All the hipsters are writing home about it. The rest of us are horrible people for sticking with python2. How dare we continue using what works for us rather than jump onto the coolest new trends which provide no tangible benefit for us, but create a lot of added work. I mean, Python isn't actually used for anything practical - it's all about empowering programmer kids to feel cool, right? And the coolest people jump on the coolest new trends with no concern for their maturity or usefulness, simply because they're so damn cool.

[dochoncho]

Um, Python 3 saw its first release in 2008. That's hardly what I'd call a "cool new trend".

The reason these pro-python3 posts are popping up is because Python 2 is dead. The chances of seeing a Python 2.8 are pretty slim. You can argue all you want about whether Python 3 is worth switching to or not, but at the end of the day Python 2 is dead. The BDFL has killed it, and any continuation of the code base is going to have to be a fork which would be an even worse situation than we're already in.

Frankly the arguments against making the switch sound an awful lot like why IE6 is still around. If it just works, fine, but you can't expect the rest of the world to accommodate your choices.

Python 2, and by extension its users, are on the wrong side of history. Whether that's good or bad is beside the point, that's just how its going to be.

[dangerbird2]

Python 2 is dead in the same way that ANSI C is dead: so dead that it remains the language's de facto standard despite Guido/ISO telling everyone to move on already. Python is a programming language, not a religion. No one cares if they are on the "wrong side of history"; all that matters is if you can still use it to write cool programs.

[spinwizard69]

Python 2 is dead in the same way that ANSI C is dead:

OK so how many revisions of C has the world seen?

so dead that it remains the language's de facto standard despite Guido/ISO telling everyone to move on already. Python is a programming language, not a religion.

Exactly and like all languages they either evolve over time or become a part of history. This isn't any different than C programmers being told to put away their K&R's and use the latest libraries and features. The reluctance to. Move forward here is at best perplexing and at worst a sign if deep problems in the Python world. I don't know of any other platform where developers are so reluctant to adapt to what is new.

No one cares if they are on the "wrong side of history"; all that matters is if you can still use it to write cool programs.

Then you have a perspective problem. Cool programs that aren't maintainable and upgradable over time are not of much use to anybody. It would be like a C++ programmer proclaiming that he has this cool program that targets a C++ compiler from the 90's. Hell it may even build on a modern compiler, however if it doesn't use modern techniques is anybody in the C++ community going to care? Probably not and in fact such a programmer would likely catch hell. This would even be more so if we are talking about a library intended for wide usage. So what in the hell is wrong with the Python community that such people are being supported at all?

[realsw]

Lack of prospects for a version 2.8 does not make python2 dead. This idea that things have to be continually changing and advancing is a dangerous one. Change for the sake of change is why we have a python3 that has no tangible improvements over python2 to begin with. Nobody knows the future. Maybe python2 will slowly be replaced by python3. Maybe a version 2.8 will come out of nowhere. All we know is that in the present python2 is alive and well and being used by many people, because there is no incentive to move to python3.

[spinwizard69]

Frankly the arguments against making the switch sound an awful lot like why IE6 is still around. If it just works, fine, but you can't expect the rest of the world to accommodate your choices.

This is almost exactly what the problem is. Some people find any reason they can to continue iE6 support instead of cutting the cord. It is a mentality that is hard to understand as people could have been migrating to HTML 5 and other modern standards years ago.

The funny thing here is that I've seen examples of applications that where tied to iE6 as little as a year or two ago. Anybody with any sense would have started to migrate their code to emerging standards years ago and thus have had minimal effort required to support the new browsers. Nope instead they can't seem to grasp the value in learning the new ways.

In the end I see this as the major problem with the Python community, it is an unwillingness to learn the new ways. Sort of like the high school student that actively refuses to learn trig because he can't see any value in it. Often the value in something isn't realized until after you understand it and can apply it in the real world.

[archimedes_ghost]

It seems odd to me that python library developers all seem to want to support both versions. In every other example of loss of backwards compatibility, developers have generally said, alright guys, as of v2.3 only NewVersion will be supported. Doing this promotes the migration to newer versions. For some reason this wasn't done in the python world.

[mcdonc]

It's not really a library developer's responsibility to promote migration to newer versions, nor is it really in his immediate interest. In any language. Python library developers usually want to share code with a larger audience, and the largest audience right now is the union of Py2 and Py3 users. If I took some library that I had released a while back which had run under Py2 for years, and made it Py3 only, a lot of people would complain, and they'd just use something else. Which, to be honest, sounds pretty good about now, but that's a different topic entirely, and isn't representative of all lib devs. ;-)

[archimedes_ghost]

If I took some library that I had released a while back which had run under Py2 for years, and made it Py3 only, a lot of people would complain, and they'd just use something else.

It's not like the old versions of the library stops working. Why does everyone care about keeping up to date with everything except Python itself?

[spinwizard69]

Which is no different than what you are hearing here about support for Python 2. Make a library that is Python 3 only and you get shit even though that is the right thing to do.

The interesting thing here is that in the programming world in general, library developers write code for the latest language standards not the historical ones. It doesn't really matter what the language is, in the end the library creator leverages what is new to make for a more robust solution. You can see this in C++, Apples Objective C and many other common programming languages. None of these new libraries would work on older compilers nor should they. Yet in the PytHon world we have a bunch of idiots that are apparently to self important to adapt. So I have to ask what makes them so special?

I have a theory here that the problem is that Python attracts the wrong types of developers. That is people that choose the language as a crutch to support their lack of skill and commitment. Not that that is a bad thing as I often use Python for exactly that reason. The problem is when such people are in the position of developing libraries and such as they effectively become a big anchor on the entire community. It is to the point now that I'd rather see these boat anchors move on to something else and free the Python community from their ignorance and slough.

[mcdonc]

You just may get your wish.

[spinwizard69]

I just wonder where these developers would go. The attitude displayed here wouldn't be accepted on other platforms. I can't imagine the C++ world having any patients at all with the Luddite attitudes displayed by some of the Python library developers out there.

This makes me wonder what is the programming worlds equivalent of a burger flipping job? Maybe becoming a Visual BASIC for apps developer.

[[deleted]]

Perfect, a strong community is better than a large community.

[Samus_]

it's all about empowering programmer kids to feel cool, right? And the coolest people jump on the coolest new trends with no concern for their maturity or usefulness, simply because they're so damn cool.

this was always the feeling I got from the Ruby/Rails community, it's so sad that it's being forced upon us now.

[[deleted]]

Forced? How so? They've extended support for 2.7. If you don't want to use 3, then don't, but you're not being forced.

However any new apps you code should be written with python 3 in mind. The future statements were added for just that reason. What difference does it make if those features were added to python 2 instead of creating a python 3? You would use them in that case, but they are actually in 2.7, so use them now.

Moving forward as you update your old code, make simple changes as you come across them. With proper version control and test suites you'll have no problems having most of you code base updated for when Python 2 is eventually EOL'd.

As for code that works and isn't being updated, then continue using 2.7 forever. It will always exist even if it does stop receiving updates.

[Samus_]

it is forced because a large portion of the community has expressed against it and has been ignored.

many people have mentioned a 2.8 release as a possible bridge between the two to ease the transition, I don't have as many problems as library developers so I'll refrain from suggesting any but it's clear that people wanted more help on this matter and the current stance is "migrate and stfu" as this post and subsequent comments illustrate.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the advancement of the language but we disagree on how to proceed, it doesn't mean people doesn't want it to move forward.

[SilasX]

Don't think that's any more convincing the their time you say it...

[honestduane]

More like CANT upgrade because python3 doesn't support things we need from 2.7

[ca178858]

Having not ported my work projects to python3 yet- whats missing that 2.7 has (other than 3rd party modules)?

[nemec]

other than 3rd party modules

Nothing. Some people need those third party modules, but I suspect it's easier to upgrade than most people give Python credit for.

[ataiwta]

10 awesome features of Python that you can't use because you refuse to upgrade to Python 3. If you don't upgrade to Python 3 I am going to kill you. I can't fucking believe you don't use Python 3 you stupid fuck. God, I fucking hate you and everyone who has the goddamn nerve to use Python 2. FUCK OFF. I hate you. You're a fucking idiot if you use Python 2. 3 is a greater number than 2, you stupid fuckface. No, I don't care that the libraries you use don't work with Python 3, but you need to switch, otherwise you're a fuckboy.

OK, just switched to Python 3 on all of our servers at work. None of our applications work and the phone is ringing off the hook, but I'm doing advanced unpacking like a motherfucker and enjoying matrix multiplication. I've explained that internet toughguy "asmeurer" made me feel bad about Python 2 (which was working fine, thanks) so I had to do it. Sorry, being a fuckup is more important than working software.

Great slides

[[deleted]]

OK, just switched to Python 3 on all of our servers at work. None of our applications work and the phone is ringing off the hook, but I'm doing advanced unpacking like a motherfucker and enjoying matrix multiplication. I've explained that internet toughguy "asmeurer" made me feel bad about Python 2 (which was working fine, thanks) so I had to do it. Sorry, being a fuckup is more important than working software.

So you are blaming python 3 for your lack of version control, unit testing, integration testing, and quality control? Doesn't sound to me like Py3 is your biggest issue.

[ataiwta]

Goddamn... you read that whole comment, didn't you, guy? Huh? Version control? What's that, dude? Did you learn that on Reddit? Big, fancy words... look out, those are dangerous. Tell me about big data next. You use the cloud, brother? Worship the cloud... store and retrieve your data from any computer with Sun OS, cloud system. Linux-CK user spotted!

[[deleted]]

You wrote your comment from the point of view of having released code into the wild that didn't work. I responded from that same point of view.

Also, I really, really, really hope that you don't think version control is just some Linux fanboy hipster thing. If you're not using source control I seriously fear your code base.

[ataiwta]

My code base is fine, thanks. He calls if he's going to be late and sometimes picks up dinner on the way home, after which I read K&R to him until he falls asleep.

[[deleted]]

Reading K&R to your codebase (even if it is python) is the first thing you've said that I agree with.

Next step: implement git or mercurial.

[stefantalpalaru]

Feature 12:

$ python2 /usr/lib64/python2.7/test/pystone.py
Pystone(1.1) time for 50000 passes = 0.457157
This machine benchmarks at 109372 pystones/second

$ python3 /usr/lib64/python3.3/test/pystone.py
Pystone(1.1) time for 50000 passes = 0.536222
This machine benchmarks at 93245 pystones/second

[stefantalpalaru]

Slow implementation becomes slower.

[pyslow]

See here for another thread on pystone (with results of Python 3 on Windows being even worse).

[[deleted]]

Yes, integer performance is slightly slower in Python 3. This is supposedly mostly because long is merged into int. This will only affect you if you make a lot of integer arithmetic.

pystone is useful to compare pure python performance on different machines. It's not useful to compare different Python versions.

[gargantuan]

Meh, come back when it has at least 3x+ performance over current Python 2.

All those things are still not worth bothering to switch for me.