And Python3 is definitely my reason for not moving to Django.
Python3 became the living branch of Python during the Bush Administration. Django has been claiming ever since that there is just so much stuff in Django that, even in early 2013, they won't be able to honestly recommend it to Python3 programmers, except for "experiments".
So with this much baggage, what chance is there that Django will soon become a sleek racehorse of a Python3 framework? It could happen, or not, but I'm probably not the only one in the market for a sleek racehorse based entirely on the living branch of Python.
Django has been claiming ever since that there is just so much stuff in Django
Well, no.
There are basically two competing things that made this take a while, and which both stopped being issues right about the same time.
The first was that the initial Python 3 releases were not production-quality stuff. They worked, but they were there to let people get a feel for the changes and maybe start trying out the porting process. Anyone who just jumped to Python 3.0 shortly after release probably had no idea what they were doing (or had a very good idea what they were doing, but that group was a lot smaller).
The second was that we've got this thing, called a userbase :)
And, well, lots of 'em were running operating systems that were still shipping ancient stuff like Python 2.3, and we didn't really want to throw them under the bus, especially since it was mostly beyond their control -- a corporate department said "OK, we're going to go with RHEL", and that was that. So we waited a bit for that situation to start improving, and kicked off a process of deprecating one 2.x version each of the last few releases until, with Django 1.5, we're at a minimum of 2.6.
As for the "stopped being issues" part: Python 3.2 and especially Python 3.3 are very nice, much more mature releases than 3.0/3.1, added stuff that makes porting much less ugly, etc. etc., so suddenly running production stuff on Python 3 is really broadly viable. And, hey, we're on a minimum-2.6 stance now, and 2.6 is when the really nice porting and unified-codebase stuff got added!
Thanks for responding. This is food for thought and may be encouraging. We "just jumped on Python 3.0 shortly after release" and have been using it without a glitch for four years. I don't doubt your claim about Python 3.0's "readiness for production", though, because workstation number and text crunching "production" and high-volume web "production" are so different, but (in addition to other languages) we've been using Python3 as our only Python for years with no (known) problems.
I'd prefer to start doing webdev in Python3, too, as long as we can just work in Python3 without having our framework's (or our framework's vast, tortured userbase's) endless upgrade problems become our problems. We have no Python2 legacy baggage of our own, and I have no desire to go back and pick up anybody else's.
So when, approximately, will Django 1.6 ship, with "no reservations" about Python3 for production?
And do you have an estimate for when Django will deprecate Python2 entirely, so that Python3 programmers will become the assumed target for all features, docs, tutorials, code snippet examples, add-on modules, etc?
As a user of Django, I'd like to say thanks. This is how a framework should be built - with the users first and foremost, and with keeping support for old versions when it makes sense to do so.
I started using Django a few years ago, and still have old projects in old versions of Django. If Django would habitually "throw me under the bus", so to speak, I would quickly learn not to trust it and move to a better framework.
I'm more amazed it's still trendy for geeks to hate on the people in tech media. Though that would have passed on like platform shoes and bell bottoms by now.
Not hating on all the people in tech media. I'm hating on two specific people in tech media. Two people who, in my experience reading their material, are biased and their opinions shouldn't hold as much weight as they do.
Do you really think that it is okay that they are allowed to be in journalism in an area where they both have financial stake in companies they report on?
Two people who, in my experience reading their material, are biased and their opinions shouldn't hold as much weight as they do.
Everyone's biased. Read any political editorial. They are clear with their biases. There's a slant to everything you have a personal investment in (whether financial or just sheer interest in the topic). Truly objective journalism is very rare nowadays. An ersatz veneer of objectivity is common but that's more insidious, IMHO.
Do you really think that it is okay that they are allowed to be in journalism in an area where they both have financial stake in companies they report on?
If they disclose it, yes. Journalism is no sacred cow. It's as scummy and scabby as any industry. The fact they disclose their conflicts of interest puts them above any journalist who has been taken for dinner or drinks by a PR flack or big company or flown out on a press junket (pathetically common, rarely disclosed to readers).
It's good to know that I need to get my guard up higher, as his return may up the ante on not only TechCrunch's reporting style, but also those of its competitors as well.
It clearly is, hn is about startups and tech, and that's exactly what MA writes about, he's a character in the SV world, just like CEO's of companies and 'star' programmers (Torvalds et al)
hn is as much about the personalities as it is the products and companies.
That bit of context is irrelevant. He frequently used the extremely general term, "Dumbwhite motherfucker.", which is blatantly racist and makes his complete argument null and void, because the comments he makes in this post are no better than the crap he heard at his job.
Sincerity and respect for a person's race does not take a backseat just because someone made racist remarks to someone else. I've been the victim of racist remarks and I'm white, that doesn't make it okay for me to refer to the other person by their race. In fact, it makes it WORSE.
Being tolerant of ANYONE using racism for ANY reason is not okay.
EDIT: The more I read your comment, the more it looks like you support racism as a means of retaliation to racism. This is why racism still (and always) exists.
> He frequently used the extremely general term, "Dumbwhite motherfucker.", which is blatantly racist
Agreed.
> makes his complete argument null and void
No, actually it doesn't. That's really not how logic works.
This is an audience problem. This post was pretty clearly not meant to be an intellectual tour de force; it was a rant, and a step away from frothing at the mouth. The author doesn't claim to be perfect, nor is he. For an audience like HN, it's completely inappropriate, because it doesn't take into account our biases and worldviews; but I seriously doubt he expected to be on the HN front page.
Except it really does. I fully support a good rant to get something off the chest. The OP is so intensely focused on the race of his attackers, that it is debilitating to the rest of his problem. It makes him look just as bad as his attackers for stooping to the race level.
His racism is not the subject of dispute here. The racism that the story focuses on is the one that created a hostile workplace and is the subject of legal action.
Why isn't it? The use of racism regardless of any factor is wrong. You are still condoning one person's use of racism over another. Setting does not dictate when racism is okay.
Edit: Also legal action? Im sure his use of "dumbwhite motherfucker" in court will go over very well. Come on...
>which is blatantly racist and makes his complete argument null and void, because the comments he makes in this post are no better than the crap he heard at his job.
Oh hey, it's the rare explicitly stated ad hominem attack.
I don't think this is an example of an ad hominem fallacy. Rather it seem to be tu quoue fallacy (attempting to discredit by asserting hypocrisy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) Technically I suppose that is a form of an ad hominem fallacy, but describing it as that seems off to me.
This is an incredible write up. It's no surprise that the insides of these tiny cubes are well engineered, but it is very interesting to see, and learn, the schematics that make it work so well.
I think it's worth the price tag. Guaranteed clean and even 5v power is extremely useful. I use that cube to charge everything. Phones, Kindle, etc.
