The "Wall" is just numbers for Python3, without context for how it compares to Python 2.

For 2.7 Pypy reported 419,227,040 downloads for 2016.

At the same time, for ALL 3.x versions combined (up to 3.6) there are just: ~52 million downloads.

That's 1/8th of the Python 2 downloads.

Given that there are only 7.5 billion humans on the planet, and that rather significantly fewer than 1 in 20 people are PyPy-using developers, perhaps those numbers should be taken with a grain of salt?

The message I would take from those statistics is that needing a fresh download of Pypy is less common among 3.x users than among 2.7 users, who apparently needed to reinstall from the web at least a few times a day during 2016.

> The message I would take from those statistics is that needing a fresh download of Pypy is less common among 3.x users than among 2.7 users, who apparently needed to reinstall from the web at least a few times a day during 2016.

Occam's Razor would suggest that there are fewer Python 3 users

It should be PyPI rather than PyPy in the parent, FWIW.

Oops, mea culpa.

>Given that there are only 7.5 billion humans on the planet, and that rather significantly fewer than 1 in 20 people are PyPy-using developers, perhaps those numbers should be taken with a grain of salt?

Those are not downloads of PyPi, but of packages. It's not like "number of downloads == number of individual developers". Those are packages, including package updates. A single developer can download 50 deps across his codebase, and update them to later versions 2-3 times a year.

> A single developer can download 50 deps across his codebase, and update them to later versions 2-3 times a year.

As if individual developers are the reason behind the bulk of the downloads. I wonder how many downloads Travis alone counts for?

Your hate of Python 3 in every discussion about it is frankly baffling.

>As if individual developers are the reason behind the bulk of the downloads. I wonder how many downloads Travis alone counts for?

Travis runs/tests user projects, so there's nothing about it that's especially partial to Python 2 over Python 3.

>Your hate of Python 3 in every discussion about it is frankly baffling.

Or, you know, my pragmatic assessment of its popularity.

That you'd even use the word "hate" (when in fact, I like Python 3 over 2.7, even if its mostly tame updates over what 2.7 offers) shows that you're probably too partisan. I was enthused with Python 3 even when it was only a vision called Python3K back in 2000-ish. My personal preference has nothing to do with whether I see more people using it or not.

The situation is not unlike the perennial "next year is when Linux dominates the desktop", which has been every year since 1999.

> even if its mostly tame updates over what 2.7 offers

> The situation is not unlike the perennial "next year is when Linux dominates the desktop", which has been every year since 1999.

Your bias is showing, as it does in every comment section on this site regarding Python 3, as you make comment after comment about how inferior Python 3 is and how nobody is using it at all because your sample of 2 companies shows this and how it personally hurt your family or whatever. You don't stop. Either you hate it or you hate something else and use Python 3 as a vent.

If by "your bias" your mean my assesment of the state of Python 3 vs 2, that doesn't change depending on whether I like the language or not, then we agree.

>as you make comment after comment about how inferior Python 3 is

Actually I've never made any such comment. In fact, tame updates" means that IT IS an update over 2.x, only not that much as it could be. Which most people I've read agree, or at least agreed until the async stuff.

>and how nobody is using it at all because your sample of 2 companies shows this and how it personally hurt your family or whatever.

Notice how I never said that, but actually gave concrete numbers that place those using it in much less (up to 1/8 less) of those who use 2.x?

So why the lie? Less is not the same as "nobody at all", and doesn't fix by itself just because you really really wish more people used 3.

>You don't stop.

Yeah, I continue expressing my opinion and my argumentation. I should stop because you happen not to like it?

Please don't bring "the feelz" into technical and community discussions. It cheapens the argumentation. If anything, it's you who are biased: 80% of your submissions on HN are for Python stories.

One can acknowledge that D is way less popular than Golang or that Perl 6 failed to gain traction over 5, without hating Perl 6. Ditto for Python.

How can you accuse him of that? You're rebutting everyone with Python3 criticism, including myself. This is a prime example of projection. You're the one on a rampage, against Python2.

From what I've seen of his posts, he's only talking about the reality of the situation.. not "how it should be".

Go look at the stats on PyPi and other metrics. Python3 failed, there is a cutoff time for adoption. It's no different than the first 24 hours of a missing person report. You don't get eternity to see if something is going to pan out or not. We're past that point for Python3. It may survive as it's own (smaller) thing, but Python2 isn't going to die either and that's more assured than Python3's fate.

And coldtea is right, but we're not going to do your research for you. What I'm saying needed to be said to you, but you need to find better ways to contribute than just rebutting everyone who has something to say about Python3. Talking about how he hates "something else" and using Python3 as a vent is just ridiculous.

That response is talking about something else because your original comment accidentally said "PyPy", which is an implementation of Python, instead of "PyPI", the package repository.

A huge confounding factor: newer Py3 codebases are more likely to be built with newer pipeline tooling like devpi (to cache PyPI downloads), wheel (to cache locally-built packages), and Docker (which caches all the things).

Our legacy Python 2 build pipelines that we're actively moving off of hit PyPI far more often than our Py3 processes.

>A huge confounding factor: newer Py3 codebases are more likely to be built with newer pipeline tooling like devpi (to cache PyPI downloads), wheel (to cache locally-built packages), and Docker (which caches all the things).

Maybe in your case, but from what I've seen, I seriously doubt use of Docker or Devpi makes any dent in newer Py3 codebase dependency downloads. Besides, tons of new codebases for greenfield projects are still done in 2.x Python.

Not sure how it is in scientific computing area, but for enterprise/web apps, any company that has legacy 2.x code and libs in production (which is most of them) will continue to write new parts (including new projects) in 2.7 for compatibility with their Python production setup.

3.x is either from companies that didn't already have significant 2.x Python code in production (generally newer companies that for some reason went with Python instead of Node or Go that the cool kids use) or new programmers that just get started and start with 3.x.

The PyPy statistics aren't worth much since they're counting all sorts of automated downloads/dependencies/etc.

That's why packages like supervisor and graphite - which aren't libraries - are among the top downloads.

>The PyPy statistics aren't worth much since they're counting all sorts of automated downloads/dependencies/etc.

Those would exist for both 2.x and 3.x so it's not a differentiating factor.