I strongly dislike Python 3

[Stephen Hansen]

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Stefan Reich <
wertiges.produkt at googlemail.com> wrote:

> My complaint is about changing the syntax of "print".
>

Okay.

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.
>

This will be forever, because Python 3 will never become "more" compatible
with Python 2. The split was intentional. As Python 2.7 is in RC phase, and
is slated to be the final version of Python 2.x, that will be the last
iteration of Python 2 to be able to be 'more' compatible with Python 3.

To address your points: Yes, Python 3 is a one-time backwards incompatible
break with the language to fix some design decisions that were made early on
that were determined to be a mistake. The transition to Python 3 is not
immediate. It'll take some people (myself included) perhaps years to get
around to it. But lots of tools were provided to ease the transition.

You can make your Python 2.x code compatible so it will run on Python 3 and
Python 2. You can do it one script at a time, as you tweak one for other
reasons, you can fix it up. The print issue, you can resolve by simply
adding:

from __future__ import print_function

To the top of the file in Python 2.6. Thereafter in that file-- but only
that file, so you don't have to migrate an entire library / ecosystem of
code-- will use the print() function as exists in Python 3.

If your biggest complaint is the print statement/function -- man, you're
looking small, and are in for a world of hurt when you get to the
bytes/[string|unicode] split hits. But even that you can prepare for pretty
readily, on a file by file basis. Start looking at which Python 2 strings
are 'character text', and which are 'raw bytes', and mark them with b''
literals and such.

The -3 warnings Python 2.6 offers help a lot too.

It really doesn't take all that effort to make code which runs under both
Python 2.6+ and Python 3, with rare exception (though sometimes there's a
couple hoops), and that's not even talking about 2to3 automatically
translating Python 2 code to Python 3 code.

But if you don't want to even put in the effort of idle, over-time,
file-by-file-as-you're-there-might-as-well-tweak-my-prints compatibility
transitioning, so be it. You're free to use Python 2 forever, but you'll be
stuck on Python 2 forever.

There's no "as long as" -- its done. Python 2 is over with 2.7. The
incompatibilities with Python 3 are intentional, and although slow, momentum
for migration to Python 3 does in my anecdotal experience seem to be
continuing steady -- so eventually, Python 3'll be the norm.

Not that Python 2.7 will then die completely, I'm sure. The pydev's have
even stated it'll have a longer then usual bugfix maintenance period,
recognizing some people will be on the Python 2 platform for years still.

--Stephen

P.S. Am I the only one who has never, ever, even *seen* a 'print' statement
in non-toy or non-bash-script-style code in any application or even
third-party library I looked at? Except, on occasion, for quick and dirty
debugging. Perhaps because I'm more used to cross-platform to windows
development, where a stray print can actually break the entire application
(depending on contexts, if one is run under a service or sometimes even
pythonw)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20100626/362eb80e/attachment.html>