;) there's the missing bit.
btw apologies if that looked offensive: it wasn't intended.
I disagree on "bilingual extension modules are easier".
While #ifdef can sort some issues (compiling ones mostly) it won't be
much of a help if a module crash (and not much help from testing
either).
In that case debugging it involves a lot of steps as gatering the
core dumps (if available), having a readily build python debug version,
a debugger and
restoring the crashing system in a similar state.
All these steps might not be possible at all (imagine a secured
production server).
I'm not saying it is not possible but the caused downtime can quickly
escalate
(think of it in days terms more than hours).
These are hidden costs to a company and it is hard to convince anyone
to agressively port something to 3.x
if it is reliably working on let's say 2.x: especially under time
pressure conditions.
On the bright side there's some success moving into 2.7: and we can all
make sure the move to 3.x will
be as small as possible in case in future time/policy constraints are
relaxed.
Thanks,
Antonio
On 2013-04-09 00:48, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Apr 08, 2013, at 11:32 PM, Antonio Cavallo wrote:
Cool, next time I have to port an extension written in C/C++ I'll be
looking
only for bytes vs. strings problems. I knew it was easy.
Since I didn't see a smiley, I'll assume that wasn't sarcastic. ;)
In some ways bilingual extension modules are easier because of
#ifdef, but
the general principle still holds. If you have a clear bytes v.
strings
story, it's not really that difficult to port extension modules
either, at
least IME.
-Barry
_______________________________________________
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
