

Unladen Swallow: Python 3’S Best Feature - mace
http://jessenoller.com/2010/01/06/unladen-swallow-python-3s-best-feature/

======
henryl
<http://twitter.com/gvanrossum/status/7464557748> BDFL likes

~~~
hyperbovine
I imagine BDFL would do _anything_ at this point to get Py3k jumpstarted.

~~~
jnoller
That assumes any of us (BDFL included) are desperate to get it in production
Right Now, which isn't true. However, backwards incompatibility is a tough
pill to swallow and while Py3k is a cleaner, saner language it has still been
a tough sell.

This should give it a helpful kick in the pants.

~~~
sophacles
I honestly thought py3k wasnt being sold. As of the last pycon, there was a
lot of talk of 'slow and steady py3k adoption'. The general roadmap assumed by
most people I interact with is: at some point someone will make a killer
feature with py3k and that will be the tipping point. Until then, 2.x doesn't
stop being awesome just cuz 3 around.

~~~
dschobel
What is the killer app for python though? Django? numpy? I don't think it
really has one, certainly not like the ruby/rails relationship.

~~~
moe
Python might not have a single "killer-app", but it has a killer ecosystem,
which I learned to value higher.

Much of the joy in working with python comes from the "already written"
effect. Libraries exist for almost any imaginable task, and it doesn't cease
to surprise me how good the average code-quality is. It's extremely rare for
me to run into a foul egg, which is a pleasant change from the platforms I've
previously worked with.

~~~
dschobel
I agree and I love python for that, but people learn Ruby specifically to do
Rails work.

My point is only that python has no similar library or framework driving
uptake.

~~~
moe
So far it hasn't been hurt by that. Every time I read about scripting language
popularity python is usually right up there, in front of all others.

Only because the python community is not as vocal as, say, the rails community
doesn't mean it has no uptake.

------
jnoller
Also see Michael's post:
[http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/weblog/arch_d7_2010_01_02...](http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/weblog/arch_d7_2010_01_02.shtml)
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1036400>)

~~~
d0mine
Direct link:
[http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/weblog/arch_d7_2010_01_02...](http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/weblog/arch_d7_2010_01_02.shtml#e1146)

------
swolchok
I thought Unladen Swallow had good reasons to be on 2.x, such as the fact that
Google is on 2.x internally. Maybe Google's decided it's time to migrate?

EDIT: the FAQ I was thinking of is at the top of
<http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/FAQ> . They do say 2.x
internal, but willing to port to 3.x to get it merged with mainline.

------
garnet7
This is pretty amazing news. Last I heard, I _thought_ that UnladenSwallow was
2.x-only. Now it turns out that it's going into 3.x and there will be no 2.x
Unladen. Wow.

Really great news for Py3k.

------
bioweek
Does this mean Unladen Swallow is giving up? Just kind of liquidating the
useful things they made into Python proper?

~~~
kingkilr
Giving up! Quite the opposite, the goal the entire type was for Unladen
Swallow to be merged back into Python itself, so everyone can benefit.
Bringing it back into CPython gives it the potential for the most eyeballs. I
don't know whether Google will continue to pay devs to work on it full time,
but certainly the community won't let it languish!

