On 18/06/2010 23:51, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Jun 18, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
I'm still baffled as to how a bug in the cgi module (along with the
acknowledged email problems) is such a big deal. Was it reported and then
languished in the bug tracker? That would be bad ion its own but if it was only
recently discovered that indicates that it probably isn't such a big deal -
either way it needs fixing, but using Python for writing cgis hasn't been a big
use case for a long time.
That's one possible explanation. Another possible explanation is the product
isn't being heavily exercised for serious work and that it has yet to be
shaken-out thoroughly. There has been a disappointing lack of bug reports
across the board for 3.x. That doesn't mean that the bugs aren't there and
that they won't be reported when adoption is heavier.
Oh, I quite agree. I don't think it makes py3k a turd either.
In the cases of email, mime handling, cgi and whatnot, the important point is
not whether a given technology is popular. The important part is that it hints
at the kind of bytes/text issues that people are going to face and that we will
need to help them address (i.e. such as blobs containing multiple encodings, a
need to use byte oriented tools such as md5 in conjunction with text oriented
applications, etc.)
One other thought: In addition to not getting many 3.x specific bug reports,
we don't seem to be getting many 3.x specific help questions (i.e. asking
about dictviews or how to make a priority queue in a environment where many
callable don't support ordering operations, etc.).
Most of the questions I've seen about Python 3 are from library authors
doing porting rather than application developers. This is to be expected
I guess.
Mark Lutz wrote
What I'm suggesting is that extreme caution be exercised from
this point forward with all things 3.X-related. Whether you
wish to accept this or not, 3.X has a negative image to many.
This suggestion specifically includes not abandoning current
3.X email package users as a case in point. Ripping the rug
out from new 3.X users after they took the time to port seems
like it may be just enough to tip the scales altogether.
A couple other areas that need work (some of them are minor):
* BeautifulSoup was left behind when SGML parsing was removed from the standard
lib.
* Shelves were crippled for Windows users when bsddb was ripped out.
* Lists containing None for missing values are no longer sortable.
Yeah, this one can be a bugger. :-)
* The basic heapq approach to making a priority queue not longer works well.
Simply decorating with (priority_level, callable_or_object) fails with two
tasks at the
same priority if the callable or other objects aren't orderable.
Raymond
P.S. I do think it would be great if we could direct some attention
to parts of 3.x that are really nice. Am hoping that this conversation
doesn't drown in negativity. Instead, it should focus on what
improvements are needed to win broader adoption.
I definitely agree that our focus should be on fixing problems as we
find them and working on increasing adoption. No argument from me.
All the best,
Michael
--
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog
READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of
your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any
and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap,
clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and
acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your
employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without
prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you
have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your
employer.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com