I strongly dislike Python 3
in [Python]
|
From: Laurent Verweijen on 26 Jun 2010 18:59 Since I was relatively new to python when python 3 was released (I'm using it since python 2.5) I don't really care about the print statement. Making print a function makes print less an exception since all other functions need brackets. I also like most of the other changes in python 3 like float division and making range an iterator. Something I really dislike, is that the "__cmp__"-method is gone. I really hate to write 6 different functions, whereas I'm used to writing a oneliners which covers each of the 6 cases. I haven't switched to pyton 3 yet, but when I do, I will give my classes a single compare method and omit the syntactic sugar. Somelauw On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 17:59 +0200, Stefan Reich wrote: > Hi there. > > Let me preface this by saying that I am a fan of Python. I use it > regularly and I like it a lot. > > That is, I am using and liking Python 2.6. > > I don't like Python 3. > > I won't comment on the advanced stuff that is changed in Python 3, as I > haven't look into that. > > My complaint is about changing the syntax of "print". > > This has probably been talked about on your lists, but I wasn't part of > that discussion. And I think that everyone has a right to bring up a > subject at any time if it is still important. And I believe it is > because Python 3 is out there and it poses a real problem. > > The main problem is that Python 3 is incompatible with almost all > scripts written for Python 2 (if they use print). And it gets worse: > Python 3 scripts are incompatible with Python 2! (If they use print > variants, like writing to a file.) > > Thus the world of Python scripts is split in two incompatible factions. > All for simplifying the syntax of one statement. That, to me, is pure > insanity. > > Here's the advantages: > > -Some arcane stuff like redefining "print" in a module (which 99% of > users will never do) allegedly gets easier. > -Any more? > > And here's the disadvantages: > > -The Python 3 syntax actually requires more keystrokes. > -Python world split in half. There is now a Python 2 world and a Python > 3 world, both incompatible with each other. > -Libraries written for Python 2 cannot be mixed with libraries written > for Python 3. > -Developers have to choose between Python 2 and Python 3 and are bound > to their choice afterwards. > > So there are basically no advantages and extremely significant > disadvantages. The single advantage there is could certainly be achieved > without breaking all scripts out there. > > Consider Java as a better example: JDK 1.6 still runs and compiles > everything written for JDK 1.0. That is proper management. Python 3 is, > I'm sorry to say, an example of unfathomably bad management. > > To reiterate, I am strongly in disfavor of Python 3 and will stick to > Python 2, for as least as long as Python 3 breaks my scripts. > > Cheers, > Stefan
From: Terry Reedy on 26 Jun 2010 19:27 On 6/26/2010 2:55 PM, Peter Kleiweg wrote: PSF is funding work on the email module. Problems with cgi and other internet interfacing modules are the main topic of discussion on py-dev this week. > Some basic text string functions seem to be working on byte > string functions as well, but sometimes they don't, and there's > no rhyme in why it does or doesn't. > > >>> 'abcd'[0] == 'abcd'[:1] > True > >>> b'abcd'[0] == b'abcd'[:1] > False > > Why???? The bytes behavior is the normal behavior for sequences. Indexing produces an element of the sequence (in this case an int) while slicing produce a subseqeunce of the sequence, which is different from an element of the sequence. Try the same with tuples, lists, and ranges. Strings are anomalous in that indexing produces a subsequence instead of an element (char in this case, which Guido chose for Python not to have). -- Terry Jan Reedy
From: Terry Reedy on 26 Jun 2010 19:46 On 6/26/2010 11:59 AM, Stefan Reich wrote: > I don't like Python 3. I love it. > My complaint is about changing the syntax of "print". Having completely switched from 'printf(' to 'print ', I have had a bit of a problem switching back to 'print('. It is my single largest source of typos. But a decent system that puts me at the site of syntax errors alleviates this. Logic bugs are a much bigger problem. Nonetheless, I support the switch. Not just for the symmetry with input(), but because it properly is a function. And I really prefer print('xyz', file=myfile), which I do use, to the ugly >>myfile hack. [snip] > To reiterate, I am strongly in disfavor of Python 3 and will stick to > Python 2, for as least as long as Python 3 breaks my scripts. Although I an not using 2.x currently, I am one of the people who suggested and supported the idea of fixing bugs for 2.7 for several years. I hope it someday becomes a polished jewel with essentially no bugs. I expect it to be used a long time. On the other hand, I strongly feel Python3 is better for student just learning to program who do not need 2.x libraries. -- Terry Jan Reedy
From: Paul Rubin on 26 Jun 2010 20:02 Terry Reedy <tjreedy(a)udel.edu> writes: > Having completely switched from 'printf(' to 'print ', I have had a > bit of a problem switching back to 'print('. It is my single largest > source of typos. But a decent system that puts me at the site of > syntax errors alleviates this. Logic bugs are a much bigger problem. I tend to print a lot of tracing messages in my programs, in the form print (x, y, z) expecting to print the tuple (x,y,z) in a form that I can read back into an analysis program. That's going to break without throwing any syntax errors if I ever switch to Python 3.
From: Terry Reedy on 26 Jun 2010 20:45
On 6/26/2010 8:02 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > Terry Reedy<tjreedy(a)udel.edu> writes: >> Having completely switched from 'printf(' to 'print ', I have had a >> bit of a problem switching back to 'print('. It is my single largest >> source of typos. But a decent system that puts me at the site of >> syntax errors alleviates this. Logic bugs are a much bigger problem. > > I tend to print a lot of tracing messages in my programs, in the form > > print (x, y, z) > > expecting to print the tuple (x,y,z) in a form that I can read back > into an analysis program. That's going to break without throwing > any syntax errors if I ever switch to Python 3. I would hope and expect that 2to3 will properly add a second pair. But I can see that that would be a problem with new code. To make your life easier, and even save keystrokes: >>> print((1,2,3)) (1, 2, 3) >>> def tp(*args): print(args) # tuple print >>> tp(1,2,3) (1, 2, 3) -- Terry Jan Reedy |