Thoughts on Python 3

I spent the last couple of days thinking about Python 3's current state a lot. While it might not appear to be the case, I do love Python as a language and especially the direction it's heading in. Python has been not only part of my life for the last couple of five years, it has been the largest part by far.

Let there be a warning upfront: this is a very personal post. I counted a hundred instances of a certain capital letter in this text.

That's because I am very grateful for all the opportunities I got over the last few years to travel the world, to talk to people and to share the spirit that an open source project like Python can drive innovation and make people happy. The whole Python community is amazing and I do not express that nearly as often enough.

Quite the contrary actually. I love Python, I love discussing ways and implementations but I am not committing the project despite my commit bit. I am a pain in the ass at language summits, if I am attending them, and can see why my opinion would be unpopular. “Always complaining, not doing anything”. There is just so much stuff I would love to see Python do but at the end of the day, I'm a user of Python more than a developer.

When you read my comments about Python 3 since it was released as the first version, you get the impression that I hate it and don't want to move to it. I do, but not in the state it's currently in.

Since I learned my lesson that people link to articles long after the fact, let me first explain the situation in which Python 3 is as of writing: the release version of 3.2, the next version is 3.3 and there is no plan on ever having a Python 2.8. In fact there is even a PEP that specifies that a release will never happen. PyPy is making amazing progress but at the same time it continues to be a project that is so far from the architecture of other stuff that it will probably fight with acceptance problems for a longer time. In many ways PyPy is currently doing stuff that “you don't do”. And I think it's amazing.

Why do we use Python? Why do we use Python? I think this is a very valid question which we don't ask ourselves often enough. I don't use Python because it's a language without faults. This year's PyCodeConf I spent a lot of time discussing stuff with Nick Coghlan at the last day's party. We were drunk but as a result of that the discussion was very honest to say the least. We both pretty much agreed on the fact that the Python language is with faults and that some of these faults are now being further worked on and in some regards even exposed. The “ yield from ” PEP was brought up as a perfect example where a questionable design decision (coroutines as generators) was further expanded to make it somewhat work. Yet even with the “ yield from ” changes they are still miles away from the user friendliness of greenlets. This discussion largely came from the talk “The Prejudgement of Programming Languages” by Gary Bernhardt on the same day at the conference. And we both agreed that Ruby's blocks are amazing design but for many reasons don't work that well in Python in its current design. I personally don't think we're using Python because it's an entirely beautiful and flawless language. In fact if you go back in time and look at some of the first versions of Python it's a very, very ugly language and it does not come as a surprise that not too many people took notice of Python in the early days. I think it's largely a miracle that the language took off to that extent. And here is why I think we use Python: because the language evolved ever so slightly over the years and had the right ideas. Early Python was horrible, there was no concept of iterators, there was not even a way to iterate over dictionaries without creating a intermediate list of all the keys. At one point exceptions were strings, the string methods were not methods but functions in a string module. The syntax for catching down exceptions haunts us to the latest iteration of the Python 2 language and Unicode was added too late and partially never. But it did so many things well. Even if not executed flawlessly, the whole idea of having modules with their own namespace was great. The multimethod based design of the language is still unmatched in many ways. The greatness of that design is not appreciated enough even though we benefit from that design on a daily basis. The language always did an amazing job at exposing the internals of the interpreter (tracebacks, stack frames, opcodes, code objects, the ast etc.) and in combination with the dynamic design it allows developers to quickly solve or debug problems in ways that are not working that well in other languages. The indentation based syntax of the language was often criticized, but seeing how many languages now show up with exactly that as a feature (think HAML, CoffeeScript and many more) shows that it's well received. Even when I sometimes don't agree with how Raymond implements certain stuff in the stdlib, his modules are state of the art and a huge part of why I use Python. I could not imagine having to use Python if I did not have access to the collections module or itertools. But the real reason why I loved and adored Python was the fact that I was looking forward to each new release like a child to Christmas. The small things and improvements blew my mind. Even benign things like the fact that you can now specify a starting index for the enumerate function made me appreciate a new release of Python. And all that with a strong focus of backwards compatibility. While we sometimes hate the fact that we have to import from __future__ it's that precise thing that made upgrades easy and painless. When I was using PHP I did not appreciate new releases at all. PHP would start introducing new built-in functions and with the total absence of namespaces in the old days, each release was hoping for no namespace collisions to show up (and I know I could have avoided them with prefixing, but that was before I learned basic things about software development).

What changed? What changed that I stopped looking forward to Python releases? I cannot speak for anyone but me, but I noticed that I was not the only person that seemed to have changed the way they were thinking about releases. With Python 2.x releases I never really questioned what the core team was doing. Sure, some things were not well thought out, such as the implementation details of abstract base classes or their specific semantics, but in general that was criticism on a very high level. With Python 3 suddenly my general way of working with the language was changed by an outside force though. While I appreciated new features in the past, I never really started using them for a while since a lot of what I was doing was writing libraries. Using the latest and greatest was not an option. Werkzeug's code is still riddled with hacks to make it work on Python 2.3 even though the version requirement raised to 2.5 by now. I used to ship bugfixes for the standard library in my code since certain companies (Apple is notorious for that) would never update their interpreter unless there was a critical security issue. None of that was possible with Python 3. With Python 3 it's either developing for 2.x or 3.x. There is absolutely no middle ground in practical terms. When Python 3 was announced, Guido always talked about how amazing 2to3 was and how it would make porting easy. It turns out that 2to3 is one of the worst things that could have happened to Python. With Jinja2 I went through the pain of porting it with 2to3 and I deeply regret doing that now. In fact for my JSON Jinja spinoff project I reverted the hacks I did to make it work with 2to3 and will no longer use it. I am now (like many others) actively trying to have a codebase that runs both on 2.x and 3.x. Why? Because 2to3 is so incredible slow, integrates so badly into the whole process of testing and changes behavior depending on which Python 3 version you're deploying against and ultimately cannot be customized out of the box without applying black magic. It's a painful process that just takes the fun out of writing libraries. I loved hacking in Jinja2, but I totally stopped doing that the moment I had my Python 3 port ready since I was too afraid to break stuff. But right now the idea of a shared codebase clashes greatly with the fact that I have to support Python down to 2.5. Python 3 is in the spot where it changed just too much that it broke all our code and not nearly enough that it would warrant upgrading immediately. And in my absolutely personal opinion Python 3.3/3.4 should be more like Python 3 and Python 2.8 should happen and be a bit more like Python 3. Because as it stands, Python 3 is the XHTML of the programming language world. It's incompatible to what it tries to replace but does not offer much besides being more “correct”.

The Thing with Unicode Obviously the big change in Python 3 is how Unicode is being handled. While it appears that forcing Unicode on everybody is great, it's also a very unrealistic view of the world. It's unrealistic because in the real world we do not only deal with bytes and Unicode, we also deal with strings of a known encoding. What's worse is that Python 3 in many ways started to become the Fisher Price of programming languages. Some features were removed because the core team was afraid that people would hurt themselves. And that came at the cost of removing functionality that was widely used. To give a very concrete example codec operations in 3.x as of now are limited to Unicode <-> bytes but not bytes <-> bytes or Unicode <-> Unicode. This appears to make sense but if you look closer it's removed functionality that was badly needed. One of the great features of the codec system in Python 2 was that it was written with the idea in mind to allow dealing with countless different encodings and algorithms in various different ways. You could use a codec to encode and decode a string, but you could also ask the codec for an object that provided operations on streams and other partial data. And the coded system worked on both content encodings and transfer encodings. You can write a new codec, register it and every part of the system would automatically know about it. Whoever implemented an HTTP library in Python will have delightedly noticed that you were able use the codecs both to decode UTF-8 (an actual character encoding) as well as gzip (a compression algorithm). And not only on strings, but also on generators or file objects if you knew how. In Python 3 that just does not work at the moment. They not only removed the functions from the string object, the byte -> byte codecs themselves were removed as well without replacement. And it took close to three years, if I am not mistaken, to even acknowledge the problem as the reintroduction is now being discussed for 3.3. Then Unicode was introduced in places where it did not belong. Case in point there are the filesystem layer and the URLs module. And then a bunch of Unicode support was written with the mindset of a programmer from the 70s. The filesystem on UNIX systems is byte based. That's currently how it works and this is what we have to deal with. Now obviously it would be great to change this, but without breaking everybody's code there is no way to do that. Because specifying an encoding is not nearly enough to make a filesystem Unicode-aware. There is still the issue of normalization forms and the general question about how much case sensitivity should be preserved if normalization is already in place. Now this all would not be a problem if the bytestring type would still exist on Python 3, but it does not. It was replaced by the byte type which does not behave like a string. It behaves like a datatype that was written to punish people that deal with byte data that also is in text form. It does not appear to be designed to provide developers with tools to solve these problems. And these problems are very real. So if you now operate on the filesystem in Python 3, even with the new surrogate escape encoding it feels weird at times. It's a painful procedure and it's painful because the tools are missing to deal with the mess. Python 3 basically tells you “Buddy, your filesystem is now Unicode”, but it does not provide you with ways to deal with the mess. It does not even tell you out of the box if Python fakes the filesystem Unicode support or not, it does not tell you if normalization happens, it does not tell you how you are supposed to compare filenames. It works in clinical testing conditions, but it falls flat in the real world. Traditionally my mac has a American keyboard layout, American locale, American everything basically — with the exception of how numbers and dates are formatted. The result of that (and I suppose the fact that I upgraded my mac since Tiger) I had the situation that when I logged into my remote server the locale was set to the string “POSIX”. What is “POSIX” you are asking? I have no freaking idea. But the end result of that was that Python was about as clueless as me and decided to go with “ANSI_X3.4_1968”. This also marked the day that I learned that ASCII goes by many names. Turns out that's indeed just another name for ASCII. And lo and behold my remote Python interpreter did not show the entries properly from a folder which internationalized filenames. Why did they exist there in the first place? Because I dumped Wikipedia articles in there with their original names. And when I was running that I was using Python 3.1 which was silently hiding files instead of giving exceptions or hacking around it. But it did not end with the filesystem not working. Python also uses the environment variables (which as you know where garbage) to decide on the default encoding of files. I was asking that question at a conference of a couple of attendees if they would want to guess the default encoding for textfiles on Python 3. Out of my incredible small sample size, more than 90% were sure that it would be UTF-8. No it's not, it's platform-dependent on the locale. Straight from the 70s I'm telling you. I logged on two of the servers under my control for the fun of it and it turns out that one of them has a latin1 encoding when logged in from the console itself, which switches to a latin15 encoding when logged in via ssh as root and UTF-8 if logged in as myself. Bloody amazing and totally my fault. But I am pretty sure I am not the only person that has a server with magic encoding switching since SSH by default forwards the locale settings on login. And why am I writing this here? Because all in all I have to argue that the Unicode support in Python 3 is causing me tons more problems than it ever did in Python 2. If one sticks to the Python 2 Zen of “explicit is better than implicit” then Unicode becomes a non-issue in terms of decoding and encoding. Here is how the part of every application looks like that talks to other services: bytes come in, Unicode goes out. You can explain that. You can explain that because you document it. You document that working with text data internally as Unicode makes sense. You tell the user that the world out there is harsh and based on bytes, so you need to encode and decode when talking to it. It's for a moment a novel concept to new users but if documented properly it's also one that does not cause too many issues. Why can I say that? Because all my software forces Unicode on users since at least 2006. And the amount of support requests I got about Unicode are not even close to the amount of support requests I got about dealing with Python packages or the import system. And even with distutils2 this is still a much bigger problem in the Python-land than Unicode is. Quite the contrary. Hiding Unicode away from the user in Python 3 might seem like the natural thing to do, but now people are even less exposed to how Unicode works and I am not so sure if the implicit defaults are a good thing. Python 3 is certainly going in the right direction now. I observed that discussions are going on to reintroduce some byte based APIs. Naively my idea was always to have a third string type in Python 3 which would just be called estr or something like that. It would behave just like the Python 2 string type. It would store bytes and it would have the familiar string API. But it also has an encoding attached and uses that encoding to transparently and implicitly decode into a Unicode string and coerce into a bytes object. It would be the awesomeness that could make porting easy. But it does not exist and Python's interpreter internals are not designed to make a new string type a possibility.

“We broke their World” Nick talked about how the Python core team broke the web developer's world. The core team broke the world in so far as they broke Python's backwards compatibility. But they did not break our world any more than the other developer's world was broken. It's the same world. The web is based on bytes with encodings but that's true for low level protocols in general. Talking to a lot of low level stuff happens in bytes with an encoding. However what was changed was the mentality which we should follow when dealing with these layers. In Python 2 it was very common to allow Unicode objects when talking on these layers and encode them on demand to bytes or the other way round. This had the nice effect which enabled us to speed certain operations up by encoding or decoding early and pass it to an otherwise already Unicode aware pipeline. It enabled in many ways the functionality of the Python core serializer modules. Pickle, for instance, talks to streams that support both bytes and Unicode. So does simplejson to some degree. All that changes in Python 3 where you suddenly have separate Unicode streams and byte streams. Many APIs can't survive on the way to Python 3 without major changes to their interface. True, it's a more correct way to work, but it makes everything more complex and does not achieve much besides making it more correct. Having worked with the IO layer in Python 3, I am convinced it's awesome but does not work in the real world nearly as well as the Python 2 one did. I might be biased of course because I worked so much with Python 2 and so little with Python 3 but having to write more code for the same functionality is generally a bad sign. And in Python 3 I currently have to, all things considered.

But Porting Works! Of course porting to Python 3 works. It has been proven again and again. But just because something is possible and passes the tests does not mean it's well executed. I am a person with faults and I make tons of mistakes. But what I do is taking pride in trying to work out APIs that I love using. I sometimes catch myself rewriting the same code over and over again to make it more user friendly. With Flask I spent an incredible amount of time fine tuning certain core features to a degree where some would talk about obsession. I want it to work perfectly. When I use an API for a common task I want it to have the same level of perfection that goes into the design of a Porsche. Yes. It's developer facing stuff, but a product must be designed well from top to bottom. I can make my stuff “work” on Python 3, and I would still hate it. I want to make it work. I want to feel the same level of enjoyment in using my libraries or other people's libraries on Python 3 I had in Python 2. Jinja2 on Python 3 for instance does not use the IO layer properly since that would be impossible to do on both 2.x and 3.x with the same codebase without switching out implementations at runtime. Now templates are opened in binary mode on both 2.x and 3.x since that's the only reliable thing to do and then Jinja2 decodes from that binary stream itself. It kinda works since we normalize newlines anyways but I am pretty sure that if people would be doing that on Windows without normalizing newlines themselves they might end up creating files with mixed newlines without realizing.

Embracing Python 3 Python 3 changed stuff. This is a fact and likewise is that Python 3 is without the doubt the future in which we have to walk. A lot of stuff in Python 3 is promising. The greatly improved import system, the introduction of __qualname__ , the new way to distribute Python packages, the unified representation of strings in memory. But right now porting a library to Python 3 currently feels like developing the Python 2 library and making a shitty version for Python 3 to prove that it works there. Jinja2 on Python 3 is by all means (pardon my French) “fucking awful”. It's horrible and I should be ashamed to use it. For example Jinja2 loads two one megabyte regular expressions into memory in the Python 3 version and I did not care when I released it. I just wanted it to kinda work there. Why do I have a one megabyte regular expression in Jinja2? Because the Python regular expression engine is unable to match on Unicode categories. And without that essential feature I am left with two choices: limit myself to ASCII identifiers and not support Python 3's new Unicode identifiers or generate a huge regular expression with all the character definitions by hand. And this is the prime example of why Python 3 for me right now is just not there yet. It does not provide to tools to deal with the new stuff it provides. Python 3 badly needs Unicode-aware regular expressions, it needs APIs to deal with locales now that we embrace Unicode. It needs an improved path module that exposes more behavior of the underlying file system. It has to be bolder and force a default encoding on text files that is not depending on the execution environment. It has to provide more tools to explicitly deal with encoded strings. It needs support for IRIs and not just URLs. It needs that more than “ yield from ”. There need to be helpers to deal with the transcoding that is necessary to map URLs to the filesystem. But it might also need a Python 2.8 release that brings it a bit closer to Python 3. In my mind there is only one realistic upgrade path: the one where the libraries and applications on Python 3 are perfectly Unicode aware and integrated into the new ecosystem that Python 3 provides.

Don't let the Inexperienced lead the Way Python 3's biggest fault is that it's binary incompatible with Python 2. And by that I mean that you cannot have a Python 2 and a Python 3 interpreter in the same process space. And the result of that is that you cannot have a Gimp with a Python 2 scripting interface as well as a Python 3. Same goes with vim, same goes with Blender. We just can't. There might be half-baked hacks with having a separate process and doing fancy IPC, but nobody does that. The result of that is that the kind of developer that will lead the Python 3 adoption was forced to use Python 3. And that developer is not necessarily the person that knows Python well. Because let's be honest: Python 2 is currently where the money is at. Even if we would be hacking on Python 3 code at night, the day job would be Python 2. For the time being at least. If, however, a bunch of graphic designers start scripting Blender in Python 3 there is your adoption. I really do not want to see the Cheeseshop being tortured with bad ports of libraries to Python 3. I really do not want to see another Jinja2 on there and a lot of the code that is currently being ported to work on both 2.x and 3.x is just horrible to look at. Hacks like sys.exc_info()[1] to get around syntax differences, hacks to convert literals at runtime to work on 2.x and 3.x and a lot more. It's not only bad for runtime performance, it ruins what Python stands for: readable code, beautiful code, no hacks.