On 12/16/2014 08:18 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 10:48:07 -0800, Mark Roberts wiz...@gmail.com wrote:
Besides, using iteritems() and friends is generally a premature
optimization, unless you know you'll have very large containers.
Creating a list is cheap.
[...]
No. A
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
This thread hasn't been productive for a really long time now.
I agree. The constructive way would be to concentrate on looking for
causes. I don't know if there is a discipline of programming language
usability in
On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:08:17 -0800
Mark Roberts wiz...@gmail.com wrote:
So, I'm the guy that used the hate word in relation to writing 2/3
compliant code. And really, as a library maintainer/writer I do hate
writing 2/3 compatible code. Having 4 future imports in every file and
being forced
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Barry, Petr, any of the other folks working on distro level C extension
ports, perhaps one of you would be willing to consider an update to the C
extension porting guide to be more in line with Brett's latest version
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Iterating accross a dictionary doesn't need compatibility shims. It's
dead simple in all Python versions:
$ python2
Python 2.7.8 (default, Oct 20 2014, 15:05:19)
[GCC 4.9.1] on linux2
Type help, copyright, credits
Mark, your tone is no longer constructive and is hurting your case in
arguing for anything. Please take it down a notch.
On Tue Dec 16 2014 at 1:48:59 PM Mark Roberts wiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
wrote:
Iterating accross a
Perhaps you are correct, and I will attempt to remain more constructive on
the topic (despite it being an *incredibly* frustrating experience).
However, my point remains: this is a patently false thing that is being
parroted throughout the Python community, and it's outright insulting to be
told
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 10:48:07 -0800, Mark Roberts wiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Iterating accross a dictionary doesn't need compatibility shims. It's
dead simple in all Python versions:
$ python2
Python 2.7.8
On Tue Dec 16 2014 at 2:05:28 PM Mark Roberts wiz...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps you are correct, and I will attempt to remain more constructive on
the topic (despite it being an *incredibly* frustrating experience).
However, my point remains: this is a patently false thing that is being
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 19:25:35 +
Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
As for the changing of the default in Python 3, that's because we decided
to make iterators the default everywhere. And that was mostly for
consistency, not performance reasons. It was also for flexibility as you
can go
Mark Roberts wiz...@gmail.com:
it's outright insulting to be told my complaints about writing 2/3
compatible code are invalid on the basis of premature optimization.
IMO, you should consider forking your library code for Python2 and
Python3. The multidialect code will look unidiomatic for each
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
IMO, you should consider forking your library code for Python2 and
Python3.
I don't get the idea that Brett Cannon agrees with you:
http://nothingbutsnark.svbtle.com/commentary-on-getting-your-code-to-run-on-python-23
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Skip Montanaro
skip.montan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
IMO, you should consider forking your library code for Python2 and
Python3.
I don't get the idea that Brett Cannon agrees with you:
Brian Curtin br...@python.org:
I'm a few inches shorter than Brett, but having done several sizable
ports, dual-source has never even on the table. I would prefer the
run 2to3 at installation time option before maintaining two versions
(which I do not prefer at all in reality).
How about run
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
How about run 3to2 at installation time?
In theory, yes, but that's not a fork either.
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On 12/16/2014 11:25 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
What Antoine said is not patently false [...]
What Antoine said was:
Unless you have a lot of network-facing code, writing 2/3
compatible code should actually be quite pedestrian.
Or, to paraphrase slightly, if you aren't writing network code,
On 12/16/2014 12:31 PM, Brian Curtin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
IMO, you should consider forking your library code for Python2 and
Python3.
I don't get the idea that Brett Cannon agrees with you:
This thread hasn't been productive for a really long time now.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
On 12/16/2014 12:31 PM, Brian Curtin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
On Dec 16, 2014, at 02:15 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
While he doesn't explicitly say so, I got the distinct impression reading
his recent blog post that he supports one source, not forked sources.
I've ported a fair bit of code, both pure-Python and C extensions, both
libraries and applications.
On 12/16/2014 03:09 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Dec 16, 2014, at 02:15 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
While he doesn't explicitly say so, I got the distinct impression reading
his recent blog post that he supports one source, not forked sources.
I've ported a fair bit of code, both pure-Python and
On 17 December 2014 at 10:45, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
On 12/16/2014 03:09 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Dec 16, 2014, at 02:15 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
While he doesn't explicitly say so, I got the distinct impression reading
his recent blog post that he supports one source,
OK, this seems weird to me:
For what it’s worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and
that’s
with the “easy” subset of 2.6+ and either 3.2+ or 3.3+)
ouch.
However the way it used to work
is that the newest version, with all the new features, would quickly become
the
On Dec 15, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
OK, this seems weird to me:
For what it’s worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and
that’s
with the “easy” subset of 2.6+ and either 3.2+ or 3.3+)
ouch.
However the way it used to work
is
On Dec 14, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Barry, Petr, any of the other folks working on distro level C extension
ports, perhaps one of you would be willing to consider an update to the C
extension porting guide to be more in line with Brett's latest version of
the Python level porting
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov
wrote:
Are you primarily writing packages for others to use? if so, then yes. But
I wonder how many people are in that camp? Don't most of us spend most of
our time writing our own purpose-built code?
That might be a nice
Mark Roberts wiz...@gmail.com writes:
So, I'm the guy that used the hate word in relation to writing 2/3
compliant code. And really, as a library maintainer/writer I do hate
writing 2/3 compatible code.
You're unlikely to get disagreement on that. I certainly concur.
The catch is, at the
Ben Finney ben+python at benfinney.id.au writes:
Rather, the claim is that *if* one's code base doesn't migrate to Python
3, it will be decreasingly supported by the PSF and the Python community
at large.
The PSF doesn't support any versions of Python. We have effectively no
involvement
Alex Gaynor alex.gay...@gmail.com writes:
Ben Finney ben+python at benfinney.id.au writes:
Rather, the claim is that *if* one's code base doesn't migrate to
Python 3, it will be decreasingly supported by the PSF and the
Python community at large.
The PSF doesn't support any versions of
On 16 December 2014 at 13:08, Mark Roberts wiz...@gmail.com wrote:
The whole situation is made worse because I *KNOW* that Python 3 is a better
language than Python 2, but that it doesn't *MATTER* because Python 2 is
what people are - and will be - using for the foreseeable future. It's
On 16 December 2014 at 16:03, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Alex Gaynor alex.gay...@gmail.com writes:
Ben Finney ben+python at benfinney.id.au writes:
Rather, the claim is that *if* one's code base doesn't migrate to
Python 3, it will be decreasingly supported by the PSF and
On 13 December 2014 at 16:28, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
First of all, it's essentially the route that Python itself took and the side
effects of that is essentially what is making things less-fun for me to write
On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
For what it’s worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and
that’s with the “easy” subset of 2.6+ and either 3.2+ or 3.3+) and doing so
does make the language far less fun for me than when I was writing 2.x only
code.
For myself,
On Dec 13, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
For what it’s worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and
that’s with the “easy” subset of 2.6+ and either 3.2+ or 3.3+) and doing so
does make the
@python.orgmailto:python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
For what it’s worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and
that’s with the “easy” subset of 2.6+ and either 3.2+ or 3.3+) and doing so
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 10:17:59 -0500, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
For what itâs worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and
thatâs with the âeasyâ subset of 2.6+ and either 3.2+ or 3.3+) and
doing so
does make
On 13 Dec 2014 05:19, Petr Viktorin encu...@gmail.com wrote:
Also keep in mind that not all Python libraries are on PyPI.
For non-Python projects with Python bindings (think video players,
OpenCV, systemd, Samba), distribution via PyPI doesn't make much
sense. And since the Python bindings
So, I'm more than aware of how to write Python 2/3 compatible code. I've
ported 10-20 libraries to Python 3 and write Python 2/3 compatible code at
work. I'm also aware of how much writing 2/3 compatible code makes me hate
Python as a language. It'll be a happy day when one of the two languages
On 2014-12-11, 14:47 GMT, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
I still think the only *real* obstacle remains the lack of
important packages such as twisted, gevent and pika which
haven't been ported yet.
And unwise decisions of some vendors (like, unfortunately my
belvoed employer with RHEL-7) not to
Also keep in mind that not all Python libraries are on PyPI.
For non-Python projects with Python bindings (think video players,
OpenCV, systemd, Samba), distribution via PyPI doesn't make much
sense. And since the Python bindings are usually second-class
citizens, the porting doesn't have a high
On Dec 12, 2014, at 08:07 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
If anyone is wondering why their favorite Linux distribution is stuck with
Python 2 – well, I can only speak for Fedora, but nowadays most of what's
left are CPython bindings. No pylint --py3k or 2to3 will help there...
It's true that some of
On 12/12/2014 1:24 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
However, my point was that just because the core libraries by usage are
*starting* to roll out Python 3 support doesn't mean that things are
easy or convenient yet.
...
I suppose what I'm saying is that the long tail of libraries is far more
valuable
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:24:15AM -0800, Mark Roberts wrote:
So, I'm more than aware of how to write Python 2/3 compatible code. I've
ported 10-20 libraries to Python 3 and write Python 2/3 compatible code at
work. I'm also aware of how much writing 2/3 compatible code makes me hate
Python as
On Dec 12, 2014, at 11:55 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:24:15AM -0800, Mark Roberts wrote:
So, I'm more than aware of how to write Python 2/3 compatible code. I've
ported 10-20 libraries to Python 3 and write Python 2/3 compatible code at
work.
On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Dec 12, 2014, at 11:55 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:24:15AM -0800, Mark Roberts wrote:
So, I'm more than aware of how to write Python 2/3 compatible code. I've
ported
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
So that's basically it, lowest common demoniator programming where it's hard
to
look at the future and see anything but the same (or similar) language subset
that I'm currently using. This is especially frustrating when
On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:40 AM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
So that's basically it, lowest common demoniator programming where it's hard
to
look at the future and see anything but the same (or similar)
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
First of all, it's essentially the route that Python itself took and the side
effects of that is essentially what is making things less-fun for me to write
Python. Doing the same to the users of the things I write would make
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Bruno Cauet brunoca...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Last year a survey was conducted on python 2 and 3 usage.
Here is the 2014 edition, slightly updated (from 9 to 11 questions).
It should not take you more than 1 minute to fill. I would be pleased if
you took
I disagree. I know there's a huge focus on The Big Libraries (and wholesale
migration is all but impossible without them), but the long tail of
libraries is still incredibly important. It's like saying that migrating
the top 10 Perl libraries to Perl 6 would allow people to completely ignore
all
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Mark Roberts wiz...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree. I know there's a huge focus on The Big Libraries (and wholesale
migration is all but impossible without them), but the long tail of
libraries is still incredibly important. It's like saying that migrating the
On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 3:14:42 PM Dan Stromberg drsali...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Mark Roberts wiz...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree. I know there's a huge focus on The Big Libraries (and
wholesale
migration is all but impossible without them), but the long tail of
2014-12-11 15:47 GMT+01:00 Giampaolo Rodola' g.rod...@gmail.com:
I still think the only *real* obstacle remains the lack of important
packages such as twisted, gevent and pika which haven't been ported yet.
twisted core works on python 3, right now. Contribute to Twisted if
you want to port
On Dec 10, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Bruno Cauet brunoca...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Last year a survey was conducted on python 2 and 3 usage.
Here is the 2014 edition, slightly updated (from 9 to 11 questions).
It should not take you more than 1 minute to fill. I would be pleased if you
took
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Dec 10, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Bruno Cauet brunoca...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Last year a survey was conducted on python 2 and 3 usage.
Here is the 2014 edition, slightly updated (from 9 to 11 questions).
It should not
On 10 Dec 2014 17:16, Ian Cordasco graffatcolmin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Dec 10, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Bruno Cauet brunoca...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Last year a survey was conducted on python 2 and 3 usage.
Here is
Remarks heard form updated.
Nathaniel, I'm not sure about that: even if the code is 2- and 3-compatible
you'll pick one runtime. 2 others questions now mention writing polyglot
code.
By the way I published the survey on HN, /r/programming /r/python:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8730156
56 matches
Mail list logo
