On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Jesse Noller <jnol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 19, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Jesse Noller wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:48 PM, P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> At 05:22 PM 6/18/2010 +0000, l...@rmi.net wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So here it is: The prevailing view is that 3.X developers hoisted >>>>> things >>>>> on users that they did not fully work through themselves. Unicode is >>>>> prime among these: for all the talk here about how 2.X was broken in >>>>> this regard, the implications of the 3.X string solution remain to be >>>>> fully resolved in the 3.X standard library to this day. What is a >>>>> common Python user to make of that? >>>> >>>> Certainly, this was my impression as well, after all the Web-SIG >>>> discussions >>>> regarding the state of the stdlib in 3.x with respect to URL parsing, >>>> joining, opening, etc. >>> >>> Nothing is set in stone; if something is incredibly painful, or worse >>> yet broken, then someone needs to file a bug, bring it to this list, >>> or bring up a patch. >> >> Or walk away. >> > > Ok. If you want. > >>> This is code we're talking about - nothing is set >>> in stone, and if something is criminally broken it needs to be first >>> identified, and then fixed. >>> >>>> To be honest, I'm waiting to see some sort of tutorial(s) for using 3.x >>>> that >>>> actually addresses these kinds of stdlib usage issues, so that I don't >>>> have >>>> to think about it or futz around with experimenting, possibly to find >>>> that >>>> some things can't be done at all. >>> >>> I guess tutorial welcome, rather than patch welcome then ;) >> >> The only folks who can write the tutorial are the ones who have already >> drunk the koolaid. Note that I've been making my living with Python for >> about twelve years now, and would *like* to use Python3, but can't, yet, >> and therefore haven't taken the first sip. > > Why can't you? Is it a bug? Let's file it and fix it. Is it that you need a > dependency ported? Cool - let's bring it up to the maintainers, or this > list, or ask the PSF to push resources into helping port. Anything but > nothing. > > If what you're saying is that python 3 is a completely unsuitable platform, > well, then yeah - we can all "fix" it or walk away. > >> >>>> IOW, 3.x has broken TOOOWTDI for me in some areas. There may be obvious >>>> ways to do it, but, as per the Zen of Python, "that way may not be >>>> obvious >>>> at first unless you're Dutch". ;-) >>> >>> What areas. We need specifics which can either be: >>> >>> 1> Shot down. >>> 2> Turned into bugs, so they can be fixed >>> 3> Documented in the core documentation. >> >> That's bloody ironic in a thread which had pointed at reasons why people >> are not even considering Py3 for their projects: those folks won't even >> find the issues due to the lack of confidence in the suitability of the >> platform. > > What I saw was a thread about some issues in email, and cgi. We have some > work being done to address the issue. This will help resolve some of the > issues. > > I'd there are other issues, then we should step up and either help, or get > out ofthe way. Arguing about the viability of a platform we knew would take > a bit for adoption is silly and breeds ill will. >
s/I'd/If - stupid phone. _______________________________________________ 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
