I believe the path being suggested is: write new software in Python 3, or at least in a 3-friendly way.
* Python3 is slower than Python2
* Twisted still doesn't work in Python3
* Division changed.
And so on. I'm not improving Python3 since I don't get any return on it, so I'll simply use a different language for new projects.
However you might want to reconsider: Other people parsed it the same way -- and one person even thought it was a good thing that they got to charge again.
Second, it matters because I'm thinking about python4 and python5. I've already been through this and got burned moving from python1.5 to python2, and python3 has been very uncomfortable thus far.
Thirdly, it matters because I work in a lot of mature (multi-decade) codebases, and figuring out what division is supposed to mean twenty five years into development is disconcerting.
Then when I'm simply not convinced python is a good investment anymore, this quippy attitude here is extremely off-putting.
Do you really want to know why I don't like python as much as I used to? Or are you trying to justify your decision to further invest?
It does, because that’s what you were responding to:
> I believe the path being suggested is: write new software in Python 3, or at least in a 3-friendly way.
I assumed your list was a list of reasons not to write new software in Python 3, and found division oddly out of place.
You're mistaken. Start at the top of the thread again[1].
The question is whether I (or anyone else) should even bother with Python3.
> Division changed.
For the better. I don't get you.
Link please?
Edit: Do you mean this other person[1] who has a performance complaint?
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13062068
Do you really think being aggressive and bullish is going to convince people to stay with Python? Honestly, I'm considering using screenshots of this conversation as to why my new customer shouldn't invest in Python: Immature and insecure community, ignorant of the problems that companies face.
And when I point out that that's nonsense, you call me "aggressive and bullish".
Uh, yeah, you wanna share this conversation around be my guest. What I'm getting is you care a lot less about the "problems companies face" than about getting paid.
No, I can't upgrade to Python3 because there is no upgrade path.
> Someone else tells you that the correct approach is to think of it as being unnecessary to port old software.
Because there's no upgrade path.
Python2 ends at some point in the near future, and if they want to be extended they will need to be rewritten.
> After you double down on your "I'm not working for free!" strawman, I point out that you're not reading what people are saying to you.
And I respond by saying: yes they are actually saying it. Here's an example:
I consider Python 3 a huge benefit for a similar reason: I can avoid or charge $$$ for people still using 2.6
and:
I do hope other language communities have learned from the Python2 Python3 fiasco. Dealing with no new features in a version with millions of lines of code already written, enough syntactical and other issues that require large underlying changes, etc.
and:
I believe the path being suggested is: write new software in Python 3, or at least in a 3-friendly way.
Which really was you saying, don't worry about software that's already been written. It's dead. Write new software instead!
> You triple-down on your assumption and when you finally realize your mistake, you complain about division changing (and all the libraries that don't work, and the performance issue). And when I point out that that's nonsense, you call me "aggressive and bullish".
You have a choice here: You can try to understand that I'm frustrated by my position, and that other people are frustrated by this position, and instead of trying to denigrate my position, try to find an actual solution for it.
Or you can simply wave your hands, claim there's no solution, and watch all the python2 programmers decide between python3 and anything else.
> What I'm getting is you care a lot less about the "problems companies face" than about getting paid.
Listen: You don't have to work for free. Companies that would fail unless you work for free will probably fail anyway. It means they aren't thinking about what they actually need software for.
We have substantial number of C programs that exist for twenty-five years or more, and we barely have insubstantial python programs that can last for more than a couple. If you don't understand how it's not in anyone's best interests to keep rewriting business functions over and over again, then you really shouldn't be in this conversation, because you clearly think this is about something else.
What I dislike is your awful attitude, for the reasons that other people as well as myself have pointed out - reasons that you are unwilling to hear. You are making incorrect assumptions about what others are telling you and feel like your attitude is validated because "people just don't understand that it's justifiable to be upset about Py3".
We do understand that. There is no denying that the python 3 migration was a mess. I'm not denigrating your position, I'm dismissing your attitude and I question the reasoning you are bringing to the table to justify it.
There's far more valid reasons to dislike Python 3 than "divisions changed".
No you don't. I said:
"I can't get anyone to pay to rewrite something, and I'm not working for free"
And I didn't get a single constructive response.
If oblio meant "ignore the existing code base and just (re) write new programs in python3", then my first response is exactly appropriate.
> You are making incorrect assumptions about what others are telling you
When someone says something, you have to make an assumption about what they mean because you don't know what they mean.
You don't know what I mean, and you're making incorrect assumptions about what I meant: You don't get it both ways, you do not get to belittle me for not understanding you and what you claim oblio meant, while standing high and mighty not understanding what I meant.
> What I dislike is your awful attitude
> I'm not denigrating your position. … There's far more valid reasons to dislike Python 3 than "divisions changed".
Which is of course, one of half a dozen reasons I've raised as being problems with python3. Perhaps you need to check the definition of denigrate, because that's exactly what you're doing.
You refuse to argue the point I have, and insist on cherry picking the things that you think make you feel smart.
Good luck in your future endeavors...
I said[1] there's a point where existing programs can't be extended. Python2 programmers have to decide whether they're choosing python3 or something else.
And then there's this surreal suggestion that I recommend replacing python2 programs with python3 programs[2] (even after I said I can't convince anyone to do it), while simultaneously not replacing python2 programs with python3 programs[3].
I'm trying to give you guys the benefit of the doubt, but I don't even think you're trying to have a conversation, but justify your decision that you've already made to support python3.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13062079