[Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)

[Nick Efford]

> I'm sorry if you had the impression people wanted to nail you at the
> stake for using Python 3. If that's how you felt, it isn't true. I
> basically agree with Glyph. I don't think we've recently (I'm not
> omnipresent) told anyone who had any good reasons to to stop using
> Python 3. If someone's doing work that actually needs Python 3 (most
> recent example a GSOC student porting Sphinx), we try our best to
> help, and AFAICT we've mostly been successful. (Please correct me if
> you think this is erroneous.). We don't get too many people that
> actually want or need that, but I'm guessing that's mostly because
> people porting libraries to py3k usually already know what they're
> doing so they don't need the first-line-of-defense thing for Python
> questions that #python tries to be.

Thanks for explaining your position on this so carefully,
Laurens.  You've made many reasonable points which I hope will
help to cool things down a little.

Clearly, there are situations where it makes sense to advocate
Python 2.X and other situations where people can be encouraged to
consider Python 3.  The issues that potential users need to
consider are too subtle to be represented fairly by the simple
advice to 'avoid Python 3', so can we not all agree to remove
it as a #python topic as a gesture of goodwill?  Nobody need
change their opinions or adovacy as a result, but it would have
the benefit of presenting #python in a more neutral and inclusive
light.

I've not used IRC much in the past, but if it would be useful for
someone like myself - a longtime Python user but recent and
enthusiastic Python 3 adopter - to offer my opinions and advice
on the issue to newcomers then I'm certainly willing to get
involved.

> We're still telling people to use Python 2.x by default because of a
> few major things:
>
> 1. going out on a limb here: well over 90% of those people are
> completely new to Python and out of those most of them completely new
> to programming too,

Not sure if I agree with you here; I regard people new to
programming as the prime candidates for using Python 3.  Many of
the language changes have the effect of making it significantly
easier to learn for newcomers (I wrote about this a while ago -
see http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nde/papers/teachpy3.html).
Also, people new to Python or programming in general won't have
the burden of legacy code that needs to be converted.

The only situation in which I'd direct someone new to programming
away from Python 3 would be if they had a specific need to use a
library that wasn't yet supported.

> 2. the nicest libraries for doing a lot of stuff aren't ported yet, or
> are in the process of being ported but not yet recommended for actual
> use by their authors, (this seems to be a point of contention?)

This has certainly been the key issue for me.  Only in the past
two or three months have we got to the point where I feel can commit
to Python 3 fully.  Six months ago, I definitely could not have
done so.  This is progress, and we need to be positive about it.

Regards,


Nick

-- 
Dr Nick Efford, School of | E: N.D.Efford at leeds.ac.uk
Computing, University of  | T: +44 113 343 6809
Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK | W: http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nde/
--------------------------+-----------------------------------------
PGP fingerprint: 6ADF 16C2 4E2D 320B F537  8F3C 402D 1C78 A668 8492