Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-ideas] PEP 3156 - Asynchronous IO Support Rebooted
Looks reasonable to me :) Comments: create_transport combines a transport and a protocol. Is that process reversible? that might seem like an exotic thing (and I guess it kind of is), but I've wanted this e.g for websockets, and I guess there's a few other cases where it could be useful :) eof_received on protocols seems unusual. What's the rationale? I know we disagree that callbacks (of the line_received variety) are a good idea for blocking IO (I think we should have universal protocol implementations), but can we agree that they're what we want for tulip? If so, I can try to figure out a way to get them to fit together :) I'm assuming that this means you'd like protocols and transports in this PEP? A generic comment on yield from APIs that I'm sure has been discussed in some e-mail I missed: is there an obvious way to know up front whether something needs to be yielded or yield frommed? In twisted, which is what I'm used to it's all deferreds; but here a future's yield from but sleep's yield? Will comment more as I keep reading I'm sure :) On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote: On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com wrote: I really do like tulip as the name. It's quite pretty. I chose it because Twisted and Tornado both start with T. But those have kind of dark associations; I wanted to offset that with something lighter. (OTOH we could use a black tulip as a logo. :-) Regardless, it's not the kind of name we tend to use for the stdlib. It'll probably end up being asynclib or something... -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) ___ Python-ideas mailing list python-id...@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas -- cheers lvh ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Proposed schedule for Python 3.4
Hello :) That PEP is indeed pining to the fjords. I may be able to contribute (and hopefully I can with the preliminary research and talking-to-people-about-what-they-want that I've already done that maybe hasn't made it into the draft PEP versions), but I can not currently spare the cycles to carry it forth from its current state to a completed implemented in 3.4 PEP. cheers lvh On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Hynek Schlawack h...@ox.cx wrote: Am 04.10.2012 um 03:38 schrieb R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com: Other proposed large-scale changes: [...] * A standard event-loop interface (PEP by Jim Fulton pending) Really? Was this discussed somewhere? I'd like to know more about it. I believe it was discussed at the Language Summit at the last Pycon. As I recall there was at least one other person interested in helping with it, but I don't remember who. T’was lvh and I remember doing some cheap spelling checking on it back at EuroPython 20_11_ but the work seems to has stalled 9 months ago. Adding him to the loop. ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] unittest missing assertNotRaises
Oops, I accidentally hit Reply instead of Reply to All... On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.ukwrote: On 27/09/2011 19:59, Laurens Van Houtven wrote: Sure, you just *do* it. The only advantage I see in assertNotRaises is that when that exception is raised, you should (and would) get a failure, not an error. There are some who don't see the distinction between a failure and an error as a useful distinction... I'm becoming more sympathetic to that view. I agree. Maybe if there were less failures posing as errors and errors posing as failures, I'd consider taking the distinction seriously. The only use case I've personally encountered is with fuzzy tests. The example that comes to mind is one where we had a fairly complex iterative algorithm for learning things from huge amounts of test data and there were certain criteria (goodness of result, time taken) that had to be satisfied. In that case, it blew up because someone messed up dependencies and it took 3% longer than is allowable are pretty obviously different... Considering how exotic that use case is, like I said, I'm not really convinced how generally useful it is :) especially since this isn't even a unit test... All the best, Michael cheers lvh ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] unittest missing assertNotRaises
Sure, you just *do* it. The only advantage I see in assertNotRaises is that when that exception is raised, you should (and would) get a failure, not an error. ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] FileSystemError or FilesystemError?
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote: On Aug 23, 2011, at 08:39 PM, Ross Lagerwall wrote: When reviewing the PEP 3151 implementation (*), Ezio commented that FileSystemError looks a bit strange and that FilesystemError would be a better spelling. What is your opinion? I don't think it really matters since both file system and filesystem appear to be in common usage. I would say +1 to FileSystemError -- i.e. take file system as two words. My online dictionaries prefer file system to be two words, so for me, FileSystemError is preferred. -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/_%40lvh.cc +1 -- cheers lvh ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python web adv. ?
Hi! This list is for developing Python itself, not about developing *in* Python. For more support try the comp.lang.python newsgroup or the equivalent http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list mailing list, or the #python IRC channel on Freenode. cheers lvh On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Durga D durga.d...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, My desktop application opens web page from tomcat/apache server in button click event (MySQL database by using JSP/Servlets on internet from user machine). Here, I found some delay in opening web pages. Is there any advantages with Python over JSP/Servlets? I am new to web programming. Please provide any inputs on Python over jsp/servlets. Thanks in advance. Regards, ___ 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/_%40lvh.cc -- cheers lvh ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Identity implies equality
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote: Personally, I think the status quo is fine and that practicality is beating purity. +1 Raymond cheers lvh ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 3.3 release schedule posted
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Thomas Wouters tho...@python.org wrote: It ended up that Jim Fulton is actually writing the PEP (with input from Twisted people and others.) -- Thomas Wouters tho...@python.org Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread! Well, if help is still needed I'll gladly chip in. It's not that I'm not interested in doing it -- it's just that I don't know who's supposed to or who's working on it :) -- cheers lvh ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] nonlocal x = value
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote: Yes and no -- there may not be an ambiguity to the parser, but still to the human. Except if you disallow the syntax in any case, requiring people to write nonlocal x = (3, y) which is then again inconsistent with ordinary assignment statements. Georg Right -- but (and hence the confusion) I was arguing for not mixing global/nonlocal with assignment at all, and instead having nonlocal and global only take one or more names. That would (obviously) remove any such ambiguity ;-) cheers lvh ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] nonlocal x = value
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote: Am 17.12.2010 17:52, schrieb Laurens Van Houtven: +1 for throwing it out of the PEP. Assignment is a thing, nonlocal/global is a thing, don't mix them up :) (That in addition to the grammar cleanliness argument Stephan already made) The trouble is what to make of nonlocal x = 3, y Is it two nonlocal declarations or one with a tuple assignment? Georg I'm not sure I understand. Isn't that another reason to throw it out? If you don't allow such assignments, there can't be any ambiguity, right? (Or am I missing something?) lvh ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] nonlocal x = value
+1 for throwing it out of the PEP. Assignment is a thing, nonlocal/global is a thing, don't mix them up :) (That in addition to the grammar cleanliness argument Stephan already made) cheers lvh. ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python-3 transition in Arch Linux
I'm sorry you feel that way. Experience teaches us that people do speak up more than they tend to keep schtum. We do get feedback on most things, including the NO ARCH rule. At least so far, responses have not been anywhere near what you'd expect if you'd tell people to RTFM n00b (in terms of defensiveness and verbal hostility, at least). From the things I've seen (and I've asked other regulars, they seem to agree), the related interactions have been short, clear, and cordial. The first is important to #python because it keeps the signal to noise ratio high. The second is important to the person with the broken package, so they know what to do to fix it and how to get it fixed for other people as well. The last part is important to everyone. As usual, any and all policy is up for debate, but I really see too much result (not just for #python, but for the people with the broken package as well) and too little badness to consider taking it down right now. I believe I speak for all of the ops and regulars in #python when I say that. Even Allan himself has said that he agrees with the rule, and yes: I do honestly believe that right now, it is the best thing we can actually *do*. That doesn't mean it has to be the best thing bar none: like with software projects, patches welcome, if you have any suggestions for improving this, we're all ears. However, I've already said: this is temporary, it's going down as soon as we stop getting feedback on it. (Checking if that has occurred or not is in my tickler file for next Friday.) It has already been pointed out in this thread that Arch is a distro with a target audience of above average knowledge. Yes, the rule does expect people to understand the difference between an Arch-specific problem and something that's likely to be unrelated.to whatever distro it is you're running. Even the people who do feel instantly offended and just leave without asking questions, hey, at least they're likely to go to Arch-specific spots next for support, and that's the right place (FWIW I do not believe this to be a significant amount of people). Also, sometimes pointing people to the FM is just the only reasonable thing left to do. If you've got recent-ish logs (24h) I can give you a recent prime example of that. I do doubt that anyone used terminology like 'RTFM n00b'. If you think 'NO ARCH' is the same kind of language, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree there. I could see how someone would think that, but IRC typically forces people to be more brief, and a lot of people understandably mistake that for being blunt or even downright rude. That's an unfortunate side effect of the medium that pretty much every large channel I know of has had to deal with in some way. cheers lvh ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python-3 transition in Arch Linux
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:10 PM, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Laurens Van Houtven l...@laurensvh.be wrote: On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: snip What is true is that there's a new and temporary NO ARCH rule in the topic It's your channel and you can do with it what you want, but seriously- does this strike you as the best response to a widespread problem? You're basically telling people to get lost, and in all caps no less. Geremy Condra It is not by any means my channel -- I apologize if I gave anyone the impression that I alone decided that was going up, because that's not true. Unfortunately Freenode does not give us the ability to be more verbose in IRC topics. In fact, to put that up, we had to remove something less important. As a result, NO ARCH is roughly the best we can do. (Similarly NO LOL is really NO CHATSPEAK, but topics are length limited.) cheers lvh ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python-3 transition in Arch Linux
Whoops, pressed send too soon. This should've followed my previous email: Unscientifically judging by the rate of people who used to have vague problems that turned out to be Arch-related, I don't really think anyone feels they're being told to get lost. People ask a question about it, which is great: answering that issue in the detail it deserves (as you've mentioned), which is something we can't do in the /topic but *can* do in the channel itself, takes a lot less time for everyone and leads to the correct answer (such as tell the package maintainer) faster. As soon as this dies down and it stops being an issue, we're obviously taking it down. cheers lvh ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python-3 transition in Arch Linux
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: According to #python, we are all idiots I realize this is not really what your message was about and for sake of brevity you used a bit of a hyperbole, but like Thomas I would still like to nip in right there. #python is a pretty big channel. I think everyone understands that reducing it in its entirety to a single opinion as inflammatory as you're all idiots is at best oversimplifying and at worst offensive. (FWIW, Thomas has already said a bunch of stuff I completely agree with, so +1 everything he said.) What is true is that there's a new and temporary NO ARCH rule in the topic, and it's the for the same reason there's a NO LOL in the topic: to keep the signal to noise ratio high. Apparently there is a large number of packages (or perhaps just commonly used ones) either in Arch itself or AUR that didn't work anymore. This caused a lot of people to complain about problems that are actually Arch-specific problems: not really something #python is there for nor something it is good at helping with. That wouldn't be helping people with Python, that would be helping people with Arch. It is not intended as, and should not be interpreted as, some kind of public declaration of war against Arch. It simply means that #python isn't going to do Arch-specific support for packages that no longer work after an update, since that's not our job nor expertise. I don't think grudges or misunderstandings help anyone, and Python in particular, further along. I think I've demonstrated that I'm eager to get rid of them before. If you (or anyone else for that matter) are worried about behavior or policy in #python in the future (I assure you there's really not as much as people generally seem to think there is) and would like clarification, there's an easy way to access a list of the ops: /msg chanserv access #python list Or just shout are there any ops on in #python whenever you like. These people should be able to tell you what you want to know or at least point you to the right person to ask. But basically, to reiterate a point I've made a bunch of times and have already made (not to you in particular, just in general): #python is a bunch of people, please don't extrapolate the opinions of a few to the opinions of many. It's easy and tempting, but it often leads to demonizing a bunch of people and putting words in people's mouths which they didn't say or even agree with. cheers and good luck lvh ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] We should be using a tool for code reviews
Hi, On using code review tools: +1, no discussion. I've recently been doing a bit of research on these as a side effect of researching continuous deployment, so: 1. Barry is right about Launchpad's merge proposals (unsurprisingly) 2. hg has a review extension called hg-review, but I think it'll be too difficult to use properly for a big dev team like Python's with many people reading code reviews (hg-review stores reviews in the repository) -- there's no real canonical way AFAIK of saying give me all pending reviews everywhere in the codebase, like you would have with a centralized place to publish patches vs a specific revision. (I *am* going to use hg-review personally for my startup, I'm not saying it's a bad tool at all! Just that it's not very good for big teams yet, because there's no real sensible way of getting a centralized UI for both publishing and reviewing suggested patches.) 3. FWIW, I agree Rietveld's a better tool than ReviewBoard, and I'm not attached to either of the authors, so Rietveld +1 cheers lvh ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] (no subject)
Hi! This mailing list is about developing Python itself, not about developing *in* Python or debugging Python installations. Try seeing help elsewhere, such as on the comp.lang.python newsgroup, #python IRC channel on freenode, or other sources (check the wiki if you need any others). Thanks, lvh ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Behaviour of max() and min() with equal keys
FWIW: I think Mark is right. I never quite understood why that was, but never cared enough to complain. lvh ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Thoughts fresh after EuroPython
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote: At Resolver Systems we created a calculation system that does large calculations on background threads using IronPython. Doing them on a background thread allows the ui to remain responsive. Several calculations could run simultaneously using multiple cores. As the calculation operates on a large object graph (which the ui then needs access to in order to display it) using multiprocessing would have imposed a very big overhead due to serialization / deserialization (the program runs on windows). [...] All the best, Michael Hey, (De)serialization being a much bigger cost than cache invalidation for a low amount of threads that do a lot of work each is definitely a common problem (in quotes, because as you mentioned: it actually *works*!). There are a number of ways that CSP tries to solve that (generally involving more locking), but they are not currently applicable to CPython because of the state of the GIL. Unfortunately, CSP theory appears to predict this is something that starts breaking down around 16 or so cores. Since x86-64 CPUs (Opterons) are currently available with 12 cores and their 16 core bigger brother coming in 2011, I guess now would be a good time to start worrying about it :-) I'd like to chime in from my experience with E, because they've ran into this problem (processors want many processes to perform, but (de)serialization makes that prohibitive) and tried to solve it (and I think they did well). As always when I talk about E, I'm not suggesting everyone drops everything and does this, but it might be interesting to look at. (Disclaimer: the following explanations makes minor concessions to pedant-proof levels of purity in the interest of giving everyone an idea of what something is that's correct enough to reason about it on an abstract level -- people who are interested, please read the Wikipedia bits, they're surprisingly good :-)) E introduces a concept called vats. They have an event queue, their own stack and N objects. Vats run on top of real processes, which have 0..N vats. The advantage is that vats don't share namespaces but can (but don't necessarily do) share memoryspaces. So, messaging between vats *can* be cheap (I'm unfamiliar with threading under .NET, but if it's similar to how it happens on the JVM: same ballpark), but the vat is completely oblivious to the fact it's running on the same process as a different vat or a completely different one running on a CPU on the other side of the world. Because inter-vat message passing is explicit, these vats can also run in parallel with no issues. The simplest way to implement this would be a vat-local GIL (I realise the name GIL no longer makes sense there) for each vat, and then the process (most likely written in C(ython)) and the objects inside each vat contesting it. Or, in closing, but less exciting sounding: we've reinvented threads and they're called vats now! (The advantage is that you get the distributed nature, and only pay for it when you actually need it.) Computers are reasonably good at this sort of scheduling (putting the appropriate vats together), but it wouldn't be unthinkable to have the programmer hint at it. You just have to be careful not to take it too far and get into gcc realm, where higher levels of optimization include things like ignore programmer hints. Caveat emptor: E has always cared much more about capabilities (so the security aspect) than parallel execution. thanks for reading Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Access a function
Of course I concur with the two posters above me, but in order to advertise for my own shop... If you're stuck with a lot of newbie questions like these you might want to try #python (the IRC channel on irc.freenode.net). You're more likely to get quick successive responses there than on other media (which are more suitable for bigger, more complex questions). cheers Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] 2 or 3 link on python.org
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote: I believe there is material on the wiki as well as the two existing pages on other sites that were discussed here. So a new page on python.org could consist of a few links. Someone just has to write it. There's material on the wiki *now* (the Python2orPython3 page), but there wasn't before the recent discussion started. The whole Beginner's Guide on the wiki could actually use some TLC to bring it up to speed with the existence of Python 3.x. Cheers, Nick. +1, this definitely sounds like a good idea to me. cheers, Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] UserDict in 2.7
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Fred Drake fdr...@acm.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote: I had thought there was a conscious decision to not change any existing classes from old-style to new-style. I thought so as well. Changing any class from old-style to new-style risks breaking applications in obscure mysterious ways. (Yes, we've been bitten by this before; it's a real problem.) -Fred +1. I've been bitten by this more than once in some of the more obscure old(-style) classes in twisted.python. Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Arc Riley arcri...@gmail.com wrote: I would suggest that if packages that do not have Python 3 support yet are listed, then their alternatives should also. Okay, this is being worked on. PyQt has had Py3 support for some time. Added, as well as PySide. PostgreSQL and SQLite do (as does SQLAlchemy) wrt Postgres: Is that psycopg2? Not sure what that's an alternative to, since the 2.x list doesn't have any ORMs or database APIs at the moment (unless Django counts). CherryPy has had Py3 support for the last release cycle Okay, going to add it but can't right now because lots of people are editing. libxml2 does not, but lxml does. That's okay, I don't think many people seriously use python-libxml2 anyway (using lxml instead) :-) Again, not sure what that would be an alternative for though? Also, under where it mentions that most OS's do not include Python 3, it should be noted which have good support for it. Gentoo (for example) has excellent support for Python 3, automatically installing Python packages which have Py3 support for both Py2 and Py3, and the python-based Portage package system runs cleanly on Py2.6, Py3.1 and Py3.2. As Barry has pointed out 3.x is in many distros now, so in order to not make people angry that their distro who also does the Right Thing isn't mentioned (what's Arch do? py3k is easily available from AUR, that's not really ArchLinux proper but every Arch user I've ever talked to considers AUR an integral part), I added this: Also, quite a few distributions have Python 3.x available already for end-users, even if it's not the default interpreter. I think that would make everyone happy, and the wiki article that much more maintainable. Thanks for your input, Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote: nod Fedora 14 is about the same. A nice to have thing that goes along with these would be a table that has packages ported to python3 and which distributions have the python3 version of the package. Yeah, this is exactly why I'd prefer to not have to maintain a specific list. Big distros are making Python 3.x available, it's not the default interpreter yet anywhere (AFAIK?), but that's going to happen in the next few releases of said distributions. On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Arc Riley arcri...@gmail.com wrote: Personally, I'd like to celebrate the upcoming Python 3.2 release (which will hopefully include 3to2) with moving all packages which do not have the 'Programming Language :: Python :: 3' classifier to a Legacy section of PyPI and offer only Python 3 packages otherwise. Of course put a banner at the top clearly explaining that Python 2 packages can be found in the Legacy section. Radical, I know, but at some point we really need to make this move. I agree we have to make it at some point but I feel this is way, way too early. thanks for your continued input, Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 18:20, Laurens Van Houtven l...@laurensvh.be wrote: 2.x or 3.x? http://tinyurl.com/py2or3 Wow. That's almost not an improvement... That link doesn't really help anyone choose at all. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64 Please read the rest of the thread: that's ancient information and no longer the latest work. We just removed the thing that offended people, so that the situation could be defused instantly and then we could work towards something everyone liked in a calm and productive environment. Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Laurens Van Houtven l...@laurensvh.be wrote: Given the number of other links that are already in the status message, it would be really nice if the comment could be updated to something like: Is Python3 ready for me? http://python-commandments.org/python3.html; Sounds like a great idea, I'll run it past the other folks. i.e. make it clear that this is a question where the answer will vary based on your use case, and provide a clear direction on where to get more information. I think the reason #python regulars never saw this as a problem is because people who actually ask do get this answer. At least they do if Aaron, Allen, Brendon, Clovis, Stephen, Devin, me... (list of names way too numerous to be exhaustive) are awake. Maybe the strong language does scare people off from that critical asking-for-more-information step, so yes, reviewing that would be a good idea. There are always going to be differences in how different communities see the world and even the Python community is far too large to have a consistent point of view on almost any topic. So we'll likely have to muddle through with various ideas slowly percolating through to different parts of the community. That said, keeping in touch with the #python crew is certainly something we haven't paid much attention to in the past, but is probably just as important as staying in touch with major library developers and the developers of other implementations. My thoughts exactly on both counts. Communication good, embrace heterogeneity :) Cheers, Nick. Thanks for your input, Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote: On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:33:35 +0200 Laurens Van Houtven l...@laurensvh.be wrote: Perhaps lower the tone a bit on http://pound-python.org/ ? “foremost support system for developing quality Python applications” ... “crack team of Python experts” ... “Your time won't be wasted by architecture astronauts or trivial repetitions of the docs”. Noted, we'll say the same thing but differently. (I understand these are slightly tongue-in-cheek but, if this page is intented mainly for beginners, I think being descriptive is more valuable) Yes, it is tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps a bit too much so :-) I didn't write it, it just never struck me as a problem at the time. I think the problem is that that page was created to fix a very specific problem (explaining why #python isn't a search engine), and it probably got written more out of something snapping than an attempt to be informative. Also, mention other support options there - primarily comp.lang.python, of course, and the official documentation pages. Will do. Regards Antoine. Thanks for your input, Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Nick Efford n.d.eff...@leeds.ac.uk wrote: Thanks for explaining your position on this so carefully, Laurens. You've made many reasonable points which I hope will help to cool things down a little. Cool, glad it's appreciated. Clearly, there are situations where it makes sense to advocate Python 2.X and other situations where people can be encouraged to consider Python 3. The issues that potential users need to consider are too subtle to be represented fairly by the simple advice to 'avoid Python 3', so can we not all agree to remove it as a #python topic as a gesture of goodwill? I like the idea of changing it to something that points to a more detailed thing as someone suggested above. Ideally short and completely neutral, like 2.x or 3.x? http://shorturl/whatever;. Nobody need change their opinions or adovacy as a result, I very much doubt that'd happen anyway ;-) but it would have the benefit of presenting #python in a more neutral and inclusive light. +1 I've not used IRC much in the past, but if it would be useful for someone like myself - a longtime Python user but recent and enthusiastic Python 3 adopter - to offer my opinions and advice on the issue to newcomers then I'm certainly willing to get involved. Everybody's very welcome, the entire reason I'm putting time into this is because apparently some people felt less welcome than I'd like them to feel :-) We're still telling people to use Python 2.x by default because of a few major things: 1. going out on a limb here: well over 90% of those people are completely new to Python and out of those most of them completely new to programming too, Not sure if I agree with you here; I regard people new to programming as the prime candidates for using Python 3. Many of the language changes have the effect of making it significantly easier to learn for newcomers (I wrote about this a while ago - see http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nde/papers/teachpy3.html). Also, people new to Python or programming in general won't have the burden of legacy code that needs to be converted. Very nice read. Most points are indeed common questions, we just tell people how to work around them in 2.x. ie, whenever someone posts old-style classes, someone will always point out to them that they really probably want new-style even if they don't get the difference yet; for integer division we tell people to convert to float or from __future__ import division, if you use print call it with exactly one string and just build that string, never ever ever use input, just use raw_input, that sort of stuff. Not always very clean, more of a workaround. Also stuff like chevron print is actively discouraged in favor of using a logging module or eg sys.stderr. Of course, in py3k where you don't have to, which is even nicer :-) I'm guessing it's okay to link to this from the newer, more neutral pages? :-) The only situation in which I'd direct someone new to programming away from Python 3 would be if they had a specific need to use a library that wasn't yet supported. Yeah, I think the reason for that rule is that the majority of people asking about new software actually start or end up in this category. No statistics to back that up, but the regulars seem to agree (again, maybe we're biased). See Steve Thorne (Jerub)'s post in a parallel thread. Usually it's because they want to do something that people have already solved, and #python is pretty strict about discouraging implementing software that already exists. Of course, as the porting of Python 3.x packages progresses this point becomes more and more moot. A possible solution is that we suggest that people, instead of rolling their own thing from scratch, help to port an existing good 2.x lib to 3.x, or use 2.x? I don't think it's a good idea to start encouraging NIH in new programmers :-) 2. the nicest libraries for doing a lot of stuff aren't ported yet, or are in the process of being ported but not yet recommended for actual use by their authors, (this seems to be a point of contention?) This has certainly been the key issue for me. Only in the past two or three months have we got to the point where I feel can commit to Python 3 fully. Six months ago, I definitely could not have done so. This is progress, and we need to be positive about it. Yeah, that message has been in the /topic for _WAY_ longer than 6 months. Regards, Nick Thank you very much for your input, Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Steve Holden st...@holdenweb.com wrote: Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: On Jun 19, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: Which is yet another reason I don't think it would be productive to attempt any kind of pre-emptive action against the #python team. They do serve a very useful purpose, and there is reasoned logic behind their position even if we might wish it were different. regards Steve I'm one of them so I'm a bit biased, but I'd say the biggest argument is that it's not set in stone (I'm trying to fix it and the regulars have been nothing but cooperative). Nobody from the #python people realized this was a huge thing for people up until today. It's been up there for a long time, and it's becoming less and less defensible every passing day (and that's a good thing!), so we're basically debating what ought to change and when. It's not really a matter of disliking, it's more of a matter of um, it's still up there because nobody thought it had to go :-) FWIW: I think a separate #python3 channel would be a really bad idea. thanks Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
Status update: Topic now says: NO LOL | Don't paste in here: use http://paste.pocoo.org/ | http://pound-python.org/ | Include Python version in questions | 2.x or 3.x? http://tinyurl.com/py2or3 | Tutorial: http://docs.python.org/tut/ | FAQ: http://effbot.org/pyfaq/ | New Programmer? Read http://tinyurl.com/thinkcspy2e | #python.web #wsgi #python-fr #python.de #python-es #python.tw #python.pl #python-br #python-nl Right now the shorturl points to the excellent http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nde/papers/teachpy3.html by Nick Efford, until we get the Py2.x vs Py3.x page as suggested above done, which will hopefully be in the next few hours. pound-python.org not touched yet because 1) the appropriate person isn't available right now 2) it's not as pressing a matter as the other thing. Thanks again for everyone's input on all of python-dev, #python, #python-offtopic, Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote: Antoine Pitrou writes: But we have a PR problem *now*. The loyal opposition clearly intend to continue trash-talking Python 3 until the libraries get to 100% (or a government-approved approximation of 100%). The topic on #python seems unlikely to change at this point, with both Glyph and JP pointedly failing to denounce it publicly, while Stephen defends it and says it's not going to change as long as the libraries aren't done. Huh? We just changed the topic on #python because people complained about it. We didn't do it earlier because we didn't know it was a problem. Defending it doesn't mean it's set in stone :-) I don't wanna come across like a jerk but could we please not use loaded terms like loyal opposition and trash-talking? I don't really think that's what people do or are (or at least want to be/intend to do). I've really honestly tried my best to fix this situation (see the other thread) and the people whom I've gotten input from (both here and in the IRC channels) have been nothing but helpful. What do you suggest? Or do you think there's no PR problem we should worry about, just accept that this going to be a further drag on adoption and improvement, and keep on keeping on? I very much like Martin and Antoine's ideas of putting the thing up on python.org, that might also solve people's problems with the apparent dissonance between #python and python-dev/the PSF that neither side really wants. To the contrary, I think everyone wants this situation to improve, including Guido, apparently. Myself included, I think everyone stands to gain here. thanks for listening Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull turnb...@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp wrote: Laurens Van Houtven writes: Also, I'm pretty sure nobody has ever said that Python 3.x was a failure, or anything like it. #python has claims that Python 3.x, as a platform for building production apps, is a work in progress How about Python 3 is a work in progress for the topic? That seems to me to strike exactly the right balance, and encourage the interested to ask the right kind of question. I think even that's a bit too loaded, as a sign of goodwill I think we're going to go with something completely neutral like 2.x vs 3.x. But I'm not going to argue that ad nauseam because it's really just bikeshedding. thanks for your input Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)
If there is such a disconnect we should think about remedying it: a large Python 2 or 3? button could link to a reasoned discussion of the pros and cons as evinced in this thread. That way people will end up with the right version more often (and be writing Python 2 that will more easily migrate to Python 3, if they cannot yet use 3). Me and ikanobori (Simon De Vlieger) are working on this. Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote: Laurens Van Houtven writes: Yeah, I think the reason for that rule is that the majority of people asking about new software actually start or end up in this category. I think that the most experienced people have absurdly high standards for support compared to those new to programming. I hope they check their advice against the real requirements of the new programmer. Maybe. I'm not very sure about this: for example quite a few parts in Twisted are pretty hazy voodoo magic to me ;-) I actually recommend the high standards stuff to newbies specifically because it's high standards. If I meet some bug, I can probably work around it, but I imagine that it'd be much more frustrating for a newbie to come into contact with a bunch of stuff that really isn't very well polished or supported? I could be wrong. Usually it's because they want to do something that people have already solved, If they're new to programming, they're already in adventure mode. Why not point out the Road Less Traveled? That will make all the difference. Of course you should point out that it's going to be bumpier, and of course that is likely to push the majority of practical folks back to Python 2. Three big reasons I can think of: because it doesn't always exist, because even if it does exist we don't always know about it, and because people actually helping people in #python would be far less adept at helping people with it :-) We have a bunch of people that end up doing their own thing anyway now, that just means we can't be as helpful later when they have more questions. But some of them are likely to be willing to endure a bit of frustration, especially if they're told that their bug reports will be listened to seriously on python-dev (given help from an experienced hand in formatting them!) Maybe that would help, yeah. We have a bunch of people now that start and then give up. They don't port, because they can't be bothered. They just start from scratch. A possible solution is that we suggest that people, instead of rolling their own thing from scratch, help to port an existing good 2.x lib to 3.x, or use 2.x? Exactly. Don't give them rose-colored glasses about porting, and warn that some are just plain broken (eg, because of inappropriate assumptions about bytes vs Unicode). But on the other hand, some will mostly work for them, and their bug reports on the corner cases will be helpful. I think that's usually more effort than new programmers are willing to put in, people tend to underestimate the cost of developing something from scratch in my experience. But sure, we all agree it's a good idea, so let's put it in the official thing about 2.x vs 3.x :) I don't think it's a good idea to start encouraging NIH in new programmers :-) Agreed. I think we're kind of getting into the territory of personal preferences here. Thanks for your input, Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote: Am 20.06.2010 19:48, schrieb Stephen J. Turnbull: How about Python 3 is a work in progress for the topic? I wouldn't say that, either - not more than Python 2 was a work in progress over the last 10 years. Regards, Martin Yeah, this is why I really like a completely neutral topic. thanks, Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
Glad to hear the efforts are so appreciated. Unfortunately not everyone agrees, but I'm beginning to think that's the tragedy of internet politics :) On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote: On 6/20/2010 6:35 AM, Laurens Van Houtven wrote: I have no idea what has been said by you or anyone on #python, but people *have* posted on both python-list and here on py-dev things like Python3 is not ready for use. It is a failure. Do not use it. (any of that sound familiar? ;-) and even Python3 should be scrapped!. I am relieve that you have disassociated yourself and #python from such sentiments. I can understand how people coming to #python might have thought that, in retrospect. I just wanted to make that part clear :) As for the Python 3.x is a failure people, I just tune those out, and if they're trolling about it on IRC, ban them. On newbies and version choice: I agree with Nick Efford that people using Python to learn about programming may be better off with Python3. I am using a subset of Python3 in a book on algorithms for the reasons he gave and others. Not even mentioned so far in this thread is the availability of unicode identifiers for people with non-Latin alphabets. I think the difference here is probably the focus. I think you're more interested in teaching people Python in a more academic context: basically teaching CS through Python. #python, on the other hand, is trying to help people build practical tools where the CS is often an afterthought (though not as much as it is in other programming language channels which I won't name). In the mean while, we encourage people to write code that will be easy to port and behave well in 3.x: new-style classes, don't use eager versions when the Py3k default is lazy and you don't actually need the eager thing, use as many third party libraries as possible (the idea being that this would minimize effort needed to make the switch on the grand scale of things), use absolute imports always (and only explicit relative, but it's discouraged), always have a full unit test suite. is a good start. I think something like that would be good for the #python web page, or added to python.org somewhere. Yeah, it's actually extremely prevalent, it's just not voiced anywhere, we could probably put it up somewhere. It's sort of up in the pound-python page but it's well-hidden in tongue-in-cheek, as Antoine pointed out :) Terry Jan Reedy Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
That's not actually up just yet, I'd like people to review it, personally I think it's still a tad bit biased towards Py3k. Until then I'm keeping the Py3.x document by Nick Efford up there. Thanks for your continued participation and seemingly endless patience, Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote: On 6/20/2010 8:26 AM, Giampaolo Rodolà wrote: I attempted to port pyftpdlib to python 3 several times and the biggest show stopper has always been the bytes / string difference introduced by Python 3 which forces you to *know* and *use* Unicode every time you deal with some text and 2to3 is completely useless here. I believe the advice in the wiki porting page is to use unicode() and bytes() but never str(), in a version that runs in 2.6. Then 2to3 should do fine. For 2.5-, add 'bytes = str' somewhere. Really? I thought you were supposed to call encode/decode methods on the appropriate thing, depending if they're coming from a byte source or a character source. The problems arise when you're doing things like paths, which I believe are bytes on *nix and proper Unicode on Windows (which basically just means they enforce an encoding, UTF-16 if I'm not mistaken). I don't actually use Windows so I might be completely wrong here. 2to3 still gets patches, I believe, when someone exhibits code that could and ought to be converted but is not. I suspect that if you posted 'Problems porting pyftpdlib to Python3', you would get some help. If it involved inadequacies in the current tools and guides, it would to be be on-topic here. Or try python-list. The choice of forcing the user to use Unicode and think in Unicode was a very brave one, and I'm sure it's for the better, but not everyone wants to deal with that because Unicode is hard to swallow. I felt that way until my daughter decided to switch from Spanish to Japanese for here foreign language. Once I quit fighting it, it because much easier to swallow and learn. As it turns out, thinking in Unicode is a pretty straightforward generalization of thinking in ascii. There are some annoying glitches due to the need to accomodate legacy systems. The plethora of legacy encodings for various subsets, besides ascii, is also a nuisance. I think doing unicode/str properly in 2.x is very important, #python stresses it quite often, I think Py3k's strictness is a good idea because people very often write something that appears to work for a long time, and then someone tries it using funny bytes, and everything blows apart. Convincing people their software is wrong when everything worked five minutes ago is really hard :-) You'd be surprised how long it can take before some of these problems are found, a couple of weeks ago in #python we had exactly this problem when we were helping Blender folks. There was a bug report from a German Blender user, turns out Blender ignores unicode in some critical spot making importing between people who disagree on charsets impossible. And Blender isn't exactly a project that's two weeks old and filled with idiots :) The downside is that *fixing* them then becomes a nontrivial task. The central problem is probably that a lot of people don't understand Unicode. Recently I learned that even Tanenbaum got it wrong in his latest revision of the computer networks book! (Although that might just be my dutch translation of it being bad). Terry Jan Reedy Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
Okay cool, we fixed it: http://python-commandments.org/python3.html People are otherwise happy with the text? Thanks for your continued input, Laurens ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
Hello, I'm one of the active people in #python that some people dislike for behavior with respect to Python 3. First of all I'd like to defuse the situation, much like Jacob. Seriously. It's been a bunch of posts so far and most of them have been pretty angry. Let's take a deep breath and try to fix the situation that's getting people frustrated like grownups :-) (FWIW: I find being called worse than half-intelligent pretty offensive. Let's stop doing that?) The idea being expressed in the IRC topic is _way_ bigger than the room an IRC topic gives you. Yes, it's an imperfect medium, yes, it's probably partially based on the use case: it's just that experience leads us to believe that the vast majority of use cases ends up being more in 2.x turf then 3.x turf, at the very least in the past. I'm sorry if you had the impression people wanted to nail you at the stake for using Python 3. If that's how you felt, it isn't true. I basically agree with Glyph. I don't think we've recently (I'm not omnipresent) told anyone who had any good reasons to to stop using Python 3. If someone's doing work that actually needs Python 3 (most recent example a GSOC student porting Sphinx), we try our best to help, and AFAICT we've mostly been successful. (Please correct me if you think this is erroneous.). We don't get too many people that actually want or need that, but I'm guessing that's mostly because people porting libraries to py3k usually already know what they're doing so they don't need the first-line-of-defense thing for Python questions that #python tries to be. Maybe you disagree on what good reasons are. #python is a bunch of volunteers giving help, free of charge, which is usually of a pretty high standard because they're professional Python developers and have been for a long time. Maybe that biases some of us against Py3k? Fact remains that there's a bunch of active people on IRC who pour a lot of time and effort into #python and make a lot of newbies really happy, and I think the picture you're painting based on a single issue that clearly not everyone agrees on is a bit disrespectful and somewhat unfair. Also, I'm pretty sure nobody has ever said that Python 3.x was a failure, or anything like it. #python has claims that Python 3.x, as a platform for building production apps, is a work in progress because of third party library support, and the language itself is pretty much done and okay -- a cleaner version of 2.x. People ask why it's too early to use Py3k, and that's _always_ the answer they get: at least the first half, and usually the second half too. In the mean while, we encourage people to write code that will be easy to port and behave well in 3.x: new-style classes, don't use eager versions when the Py3k default is lazy and you don't actually need the eager thing, use as many third party libraries as possible (the idea being that this would minimize effort needed to make the switch on the grand scale of things), use absolute imports always (and only explicit relative, but it's discouraged), always have a full unit test suite. This is advice that generally makes a lot of sense, and it's the recommended thing in PEP 3000 for porting to 3.x as well. We're still telling people to use Python 2.x by default because of a few major things: 1. going out on a limb here: well over 90% of those people are completely new to Python and out of those most of them completely new to programming too, 2. the nicest libraries for doing a lot of stuff aren't ported yet, or are in the process of being ported but not yet recommended for actual use by their authors, (this seems to be a point of contention?) 3. we know how to help people better with it Which are all basically different incarnations of the same issue. People are working on libraries everywhere and I really don't want to pretend those people haven't gotten any work done, but AFAICT a lot of these for existing mature projects that you'd want people to use in order to be happy productive Python users don't really exist yet or are at best experimental. At the very least I think most people can agree that 2.x is still the default release for existing, mature software projects and most new ones too. I can only speak for my own area of intrest: Python is way too big for anyone to have used every piece of software for it ever. I, personally, don't use 3.x because I develop for PyS60 devices, PythonCE devices (2.5 only), and Twisted servers (2.6), and none of those work on 3.x yet. The other thing we build is websites, and AFAIK the web situation, for now, is still use python2.x, too? (for any non-trivial website, of course). We use AMQP, and the best thing we've found for it is 2.x only (maybe Carrot and Pika do 3.x now, but I can't find any evidence of it). Nobody here (here = place of business) hates Python 3. We just can't use it. I'm very sorry if you've been offended. Like Glyph said: we're not grinding ideological axes. We're just recommending what
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
Michael, Fair point! It's mostly put in the topic so people can ask about it and we can give them more detailed answers, because, as other people have mentioned, the exact answer depends largely on what *precisely* someone is doing. I'm not sure what sort of an effect it would have if we took it out. Maybe something we could try? I'm not sure it'd have much of a practical effect since most of the regulars expertise isn't going to shift instantly, so getting actual help is probably going to be a bit rough on 3.x users. At the very least I'm going to take this suggestion to #python's regulars and see what they have to say about it :-) (One of the problems people I've talked to in private that were pretty miffed about is the dissonance between #python and python-dev, and that there's some problem with people assuming things said on #python as being very authoritative answers (ha ha). I think this is really bad for Python as a whole and I've love to hear ideas on how you guys think it could be fixed.) thanks Laurens ___ 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
