Talk:Python 3

Untitled

I see no point at all in including history for Python 1.x and 2.x here. Fredrik Johansson 08:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It could go in an article specifically about Python history, though (which the main article can link out to as well). --Piet Delport 09:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main article (Python) and Perl have history sections, and so should this. Programmers probably consider it the least important section, but everything with any kind of history probably has that history included in its article. It seems less appropriate in this article because I added more subsections than in those other articles, and I put it on top, which makes it stand out more. There should be an introduction on top, which I think would make the history section less bothersome, but I didn't get to that yet.

Also, my intention is that when Python 3 is released, or once it's the most used version, a search for python will redirect to this article, and the Python article will be renamed Python 2. This article is supposed to be about more than Python 3000. It's about an actual programming language, just like Python's article, except, for now, Python 3 isn't complete.

I think the "Primary topic: Python programming language" template should be removed once there's an introductory paragraph that links to Python. Or maybe sooner. -Barry- 17:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Python 2 and Python 3 are nearly as different as this approach makes them seem. Guido has repeatedly stated that he abandoned his plans of a rewrite/reinvention long ago: while Python 3 is an opportunity to drop the accumulated backwards compatibility baggage that Python drags around, it will otherwise not really be that much different than any other 2.x release. In fact, the plan is to backport new 3.x language features to the 2.x branch wherever possible, something which normally doesn't happen even between adjacent 2.x releases. Furthermore, Guido makes it clear, in his Python 3000 presentation, that Python 3.0 should not "change the look and feel of the language too much", or "add radical new features".

The more i think about it, the more i think it would be a good idea to widen the current Python 3 article's scope to cover Python history as a whole, and make the main Python article link to it as a subarticle. --Piet Delport 01:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles have a list of things that will be different in Python 3, but I'm not sure whether there would be enough new material to justify separate articles as I planned. I kind of figured there would be, which is why I'm treating this article as a complete programming language article and writing it like the Python article. If we find out that the difference between this and the Python article isn't significant once Python 3 is out, then this can be combined with Python, and I guess this article could deleted and "python 3" could be redirected to "python." Remember that Python 2 will coexist with Python 3 for a while and both will need to be documented even once Python 3 is out. Maybe they'll be too much for one article. -Barry- 03:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main Python article

Are there any objections to merging the contents of this article into Python programming language, as per the discussion above? --Piet Delport 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would much prefer not merging this into the Python programming language article. We've already refactored that main article a couple times because of WP:SIZE concerns, and a merge seems to move in the wrong direction. Moreover, this article is long enough that it would tend to weigh the main article in the direction of "what might happen" over "what actually exists" (even if the outcome is indeed likely). LotLE×talk 02:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "merge", i don't mean that the content has to go straight into the main article. The relevant section(s) can always be split into a Python history or Python timeline subarticle, with an appropriate summary, if they're long enough.

As i've try to explain above, my main objection to the current (separate) article is that it seriously misrepresents how different Python 3 is from other Python releases. The plans to make Python 3000 a reinvention/rewrite of the language (which would have warranted this being a separate article (a la Perl 6), have been scrapped by Guido and the community years ago, in favor of sticking with the approach of gradual improvement with each new language release.

It bears emphasizing: the plan is for Python 3 to be Just Another Release of the language, in terms of the magnitude of its changes. For the unconvinced, i recommend looking at the changes in previous major Python versions: 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5. (Many of these changes (class-based exception, list comprehensions, nested scopes, int/long unification and new-style division, the iteration protocol, new-style classes and the descriptor protocol, generators and generator expressions, function decorators, conditional expressions, with blocks) are much better candidates for turning Python into a different language than any of the adjustments coming in Python 3.)

The only thing that does make Python 3 special is that it's earmarked as the one and final "backwards compatibility breaking" release; but even then, the incompatibile changes are generally limited to spring-cleaning, not redesign: Guido has emphasized that Python 3 should not "change the look and feel of the language too much", "make gratuitous or confusing changes", or "add radical new features (can always do that later)". [1] In my opinion, this might deserve a special mention/discussion in the main Python article (or relevant subarticle, as the case may be), but definitely not a duplication of the top-level Python article with a few Python 3-specific bits changed.

--Piet Delport 10:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree that it doesn't seem like Python 3 will be as big a deal as, e.g. Perl 6. I may weigh the significance of breaking backward compatibility slightly more than Piet Delport does (but then, earlier changes have had breakages at the corners; though it's treated slightly as a dirty secret rather than a goal).

But even if the changes were even smaller, I'd have the same sentiment. E.g. pretend that all Python 3 planned was add class decorators, a half dozen new standard modules, and three new magic attribute names. Even then, to my mind there's a big difference between the changes that are planned and those that have been released. Plans could completely change: maybe the BDFL will get hit by a bus or take a big bribe from Microsoft (god forbid both events, of course); maybe the unwashed masses at the PSF will revolt and usurp the ruler to add curly braces to Python 3; maybe... whatever. Things that might happen in the future—even if we have perfectly good reasons to to expect the events—are still in the realm of speculation. I think well-documented plans are perfectly fine to cover in WP articles, but I like the separation from the main article on things that actually happened historically in Python's development. LotLE×talk 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you completely.

I am not suggesting removing the separation of the future plans from the main article: i am only suggesting that Wikipedia should not treat Python 2 and Python 3 as separate programming languages, in separate articles. More concretely, i'm advocating that the contents of this article be turned into more focused subarticle covering Python's history/timeline/future plans (which would allow the corresponding sections in the main article to be condensed to a shorter and more relevant summary).

(Tangentially: i can assure you that i don't weigh the significance of breaking backwards compatibility lightly at all. I was just trying to belabor a point: that interpreting this limited breaking of backwards compatibility as turning Python 3 into a new, separate language is absurd.)

--Piet Delport 17:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; I agree that we shouldn't say Python 3 is a whole different language. But it seems to me that the best place to clarify that is in this article. Maybe tweak the lead to make matters more explicit, and the like. The main point of this article, to my mind, is that it's about plans rather than about products... come 2007 or 2008, I'll probably urge a merger :-). FWIW, I tend to think the whole history of Python 1/2 shouldn't be in this article in much detail, just a pointer back to the main article. Still, we're going in circles, and don't really have any large disagreement. Let's get the opinion of some other editors. LotLE×talk 18:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wtf

Hey, guys...you're just restating the main Python article. The entire Philosophy section has nothing to do with the next version of the language, it's just reiterating everything about Python itself. The Python 3 article has to be about that version of the language. 209.92.136.131 14:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; see all the discussion above. :) --Piet Delport 14:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

citation

in my view, the whole timeline section is basically taken word for word off of the timeline section in the python 3.0 part of the python website, [www.python.org] (written by guido himself). though the document has been put in the public domain, i think it would still be best to cite it. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernsteinp (talk • contribs) 21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use "Python 3" as the title, please

Please don't call it "Python 3". That name is not used anywhere else. Python 3000 is the project "code name", its abbreviation is Py3k, and the formal release is Python 3.0. Nobody uses "Python 3" to describe the project except for this wikipedia entry. (And agreed with all the other comments about not repeating the main "Python" page.) Gvanrossum 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should we use as this page name? I suggest "Python 3000". Python 3.0 does not exist yet, and when it does (i.e., when Python 3.0 is the most current generally available release), I assume that all the features about 3.0 will simply be placed into the main Python article. Terry Carroll 18:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

In view of the above, i re-propose merging the applicable content of this article into Python (programming language) (or History of Python in summary style, if necessary); as it stands, the article does not reflect the state or scope of Python 3.0.

Any objections? —Piet Delport 02:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and merge. Fredrik Johansson 10:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this now. I can't believe it's been left in this condition for so long.

It may be necessary to prune Python (programming language) a little to remove some of the extra bloat from this article, I haven't time to do this at the moment. Vl'hurg ^talk 12:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed reference style is bad

Really... it looks ugly. Put all references inside <ref> tags, and give raw URLs more descriptive link names. Pretty please. LotLE×talk 18:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]