Hacker News Reader

Comment by fpliger | Hacker News Reader

Thanks for the feedback. We keep a continuous and frequent effort to make documentation more efficient and straightforward .. Building clear is a constant/endless effort and feedback is very important.

To clarify, Futures is required for bokeh server as an extra dependency on Python 2.7 since it's not a battery included like for Python > 3.2.. if you conda install Bokeh it should be installed already for you. You can find more info about the bokeh server features here: http://bokeh.pydata.org/en/latest/docs/user_guide/server.htm... and here: http://bokeh.pydata.org/en/latest/docs/user_guide/cli.html#m...

Flexx, on other hand, is not required by bokeh server itself but instead to define python functions to handle interactivity that runs on the browser (no need of bokeh server). Flexx is used to convert python to JS. You can find more info here: http://bokeh.pydata.org/en/latest/docs/user_guide/interactio...

View on HN

thx @fpilger, fantastic to see another Py3 ready application. It's clear now. One way to avoid this is either give a install write up an installation guide [0] that explicitly mentions the python version and dependencies.

This is one of the first questions I ask, "is this code Python3 ready?", so I look at the install requirements first. Maybe I'm an edge case. A short cut might be just to say in big words, Python3 ready.

[0] For example this PIL fork, Pillow (python3) https://pillow.readthedocs.org/en/latest/installation.html

If wanting to know up front if this is designed for the future or the past is an edge case, it's a pretty crowded edge. Python 3 was released eight years ago, and I will ALWAYS choose a competing technology (if it means a language other than Python, that's fine with me) before I'll let Python 2 play any role in a new project I architect.

The first thing I looked for on the Bokeh website was some sort of clear statement on the front page about it being Python 3. I don't have an immediate need for it, but if it's Python 3, I'll keep it in mind. If it's just that euphemistic "Python", it may as well be Cobol for all I'd care.

I thought I'd skim over these comments just in case someone asked the obvious question, and someone did. (Thank you.) And, yes, it is apparently Python 3 enough that we wouldn't need to use any Python 2 if we adopted it.

Very nice. Now I wish I DID need it, but maybe I'll do a side project of my own with it, just for fun. I'll be keeping it in mind in any case. I'll bet "Python 3" is mentioned somewhere on the site, but I didn't spot it right away. It might be worth making it a bit more prominent, since it is an important feature for those designing for the future.

I wrote most of the docs, and my default day-to-day python is Python 3, so it's really just a matter of forgetting that "Python 3 ready" is something still needs to be mentioned at all. In fact we even have a python 3 only feature at the moment (python->JS compilation) But yes, just to clarify our CI tests run on python 2.7, 3.4 and 3.5

"If wanting to know up front if this is designed for the future or the past is an edge case, it's a pretty crowded edge. Python 3 was released eight years ago"

good point: a quick search reveals that Py2.x is still in a lot of legacy code (dependencies -- the big one), so I always check first:

- https://python3wos.appspot.com/

- http://stackoverflow.com/questions/30751668/python-2-vs-pyth...

- http://hiltmon.com/blog/2014/01/04/python-its-a-trap/

- https://blog.newrelic.com/2014/01/21/python-3-adoption-web-a...

- http://www.randalolson.com/2015/01/30/python-usage-survey-20...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com