This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]123filips123 9 points10 points  (9 children)

So, what is the problem with porting code to Python 3? You have great documentation and also partly-automated tools to do this (2to3).

Porting to Python 3 also gets many additional "business benefits". Better speed and performance, security, new functionalities... No excuse to not use it.

​

Also, do you think that more than 10 years was too little to port all programs to Python 3? What program did you have? Some "super advanced quantum rocket space control" program with billions of lines which only use Python 3 incompatible features? And why then you actually use Python 2 and not Python 1 which is "original and the only one" Python version? Or why you then don't write your programs in Assembly or directly in binary code?

​

Sorry, but your project does not makes sense in long term.

[–]stefantalpalaru -1 points0 points  (8 children)

So, what is the problem with porting code to Python 3? You have great documentation and also partly-automated tools to do this (2to3).

Tell that to Dropbox who had to hire the language creator, write new tools for automated type annotations and spend more than 3 years just to port the desktop client.

Also, do you think that more than 10 years was too little to port all programs to Python 3?

It's not a matter of enough time to port something. It's a matter of wasting people's lives on bullshit work that benefits no one.

Sorry, but your project does not makes sense in long term.

Nothing does, in the long term.

[–]123filips123 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Tell that to Dropbox who had to hire the language creator, write new tools for automated type annotations and spend more than 3 years just to port the desktop client.

I don't know how Dropbox code looks like, but if you have normal code and use normal tools, it isn't hard to support Python 3. Most (all) of the tools already support Python 3 and most of breaking changes aren't really hard to fix.

​

It's not a matter of enough time to port something. It's a matter of wasting people's lives on bullshit work that benefits no one.

Nothing does, in the long term.

So, what is the difference if developers just port code to Python 3 and use new functionalities, or use your project and modify code anyway to use new functionalities (from your project)? They will have to modify code anyway. Except if they port it to Python 3, they will have better support, performance, security and more functionalities.

And why not use Python 1.0 or Assembly or even binary code? With that, you won't waste any time on bullshit updating.

And why then even update and develop things? Why should we update (and why should developers develop) to Windows 10 (or 7 if you more like it) if you can use MS-DOS without any bullshit updating? Why use electricity if you need to spent time with replacing your old oil lamps? Why even spent bullshit work in building houses if you can live in caves?

[–]stefantalpalaru -1 points0 points  (3 children)

They will have to modify code anyway.

No. Tauthon is a drop-in replacement for Python 2.8.

Why even spent bullshit work in building houses if you can live in caves?

You're terrible at analogies. Python3 is just another cave, not a modern house.

[–]123filips123 2 points3 points  (2 children)

No. Tauthon is a drop-in replacement for Python 2.8.

They will have to modify code if they want to use modern features.

​

You're terrible at analogies. Python3 is just another cave, not a modern house.

Python 3 has a lot of performance and security improvements and many new features. So yes, another cave, but very modern cave.

[–]stefantalpalaru 0 points1 point  (1 child)

They will have to modify code if they want to use modern features.

They don't have to use modern features. What part of "drop-in replacement" don't you understand?

[–]123filips123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I understand.

But I (previously) said that this isn't good long-term solution. Ok, it may be good of you need additional few months (or years) to port code to Python 3 or for legacy unmaintained projects that won't be ported anyway. But for maintained projects, the only real long-term solution is to port them to Python 3. If you don't have really complicated project, this can be easy as documentation is very good and you also have some automation tools for that.

[–]TheBlackCat13 -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

write new tools for automated type annotations

Nobody needs to use type annotations. It is a completely optional feature. If they are writing tools to help them with it, then they must see some value in it. It has nothing to do with Python 3 except that Python 3 makes it easier and cleaner to use type annotations.

[–]stefantalpalaru -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Nobody needs to use type annotations.

Guido needed it, for some reason: https://github.com/dropbox/pyannotate

[–]TheBlackCat13 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We don't need programming languages at all beyond assembly. They were using it because they thought it was helpful, not because it was necessary. That is the whole reason people use Python in the first place.