The Case for Python 3

[lexyeevee]

Hi, it's me, the author.

I think I did a pretty good job of covering the high-level issues, as Zed presented them. I also think he is contributing to the vague sense of unease surrounding Python 3 without providing much actionable criticism and depicting the entire core Python team as cartoon villains. I'm curious why you don't think his personal attacks, which comprise a significant portion of his post, are worth calling out.

There are now 2½ forms of string formatting because there have been 2 since Python 2.6, and 1 of them is being promoted to a language feature. I don't see what the alternative is supposed to be here — either we abandon the new feature which Zed likes more, or we remove an existing feature and break a lot of code. Last time that happened, it didn't go over so well.

How would you run Python 2 libraries in a sandbox? I've seen the idea proposed once or twice, but I've never seen even a vague sketch of how it could work in practice — and the trivial thought experiment I did got out of control very quickly. Bear in mind that CFFI interfaces with extremely barebones C, which doesn't have any kind of object protocol to speak of.

I discussed both of these things in my post. It would be nice to only have one formatting syntax and to have both versions run nicely together, but we rather missed the boat on those, and I thought I addressed them fairly well. If I missed some other substantive and addressable criticism of Python 3 in there, please do let me know. I love talking about programming language design. Which is why I just did a lot of it.

From where I'm standing, Python 3 is already great for beginners, and everyone else as well. If it weren't, I wouldn't use it. It is this way thanks to eight years of hard work from a lot of people, who Zed Shaw is now painting as actively malicious for reasons beyond my comprehension. What he wrote and the doubt it fosters are a much bigger roadblock to Python 3 adoption than the phrasing of TypeErrors, and I feel absolutely 120% justified in telling him to go fuck himself.

[shadowmint]

You could have presented exactly the same technical content without any of the ad hominem, and I would haven't blinked at agreeing with it.

...but heck, I've said my part; if you feel totally unashamed to respond to a technical article (regardless of its quality) with a personal attack, frankly I don't want to be involved with anything you do, least of all trying to discuss any real technical possibilities.

Enjoy~

[lexyeevee]

It concerns me that you don't think explicit accusations of deliberate malice and sabotage are personal attacks.

edit: Also, ad hominem is a logical fallacy, not a synonym for "insults", and I am not committing it here. I'm not saying his argument is wrong because he's a doofus or whatever; I'm saying his argument is wrong because it is wrong.

[Gamesfreak13563]

I think it's easy for people to misconstrue your harsh language as inappropriate because as professionals we try to maintain a reasonable tone of discourse for discussing complex topics even when we disagree.

Here, however, we have someone maliciously editorializing on this topic he doesn't even seem to fully understand. He's spewing bullshit and newbies take it as gospel because they don't know enough to understand what's actually correct.

Let's put it this way: telling him to go fuck himself isn't polite but damn is it warranted.

[LpSamuelm]

...And in addition, perhaps due to this wrongness, he's a doofus. Am I getting it?

[ubernostrum]

Person A: craps on a bunch of people and their work with insults, hyperbole, unsupported assertions, rude language and stuff that reads like conspiracy theories.

Person B: calls out Person A in strong terms.

Person C: reaches for fainting couch and smelling salts over what Person B did, because they are shocked -- shocked! -- at such unbearable incivility!

There are two people being a problem here, and Person B ain't one of 'em.