Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
Am 22.06.2010 01:01, schrieb Terry Reedy: On 6/21/2010 3:59 PM, Steve Holden wrote: Terry Reedy wrote: On 6/21/2010 8:33 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: P.S. (We're going to have a tough decision to make somewhere along the line where docs.python.org is concerned, too - when do we flick the switch and make a 3.x version of the docs the default? Easy. When 3.2 is released. When 2.7 is released, 3.2 becomes 'trunk'. Trunk released always take over docs.python.org. To do otherwise would be to say that 3.2 is not a real trunk release and not yet ready for real use -- a major slam. Actually, I thought this was already discussed and decided ;-). This also gives the 2.7 release it's day in the sun before relegation to maintenance status. Every new version (except 3.0 and 3.1) has gone to maintenance status *and* becomes the featured release on docs.python.org the day it was released. 2.7 would just spend less time as the featured release on that page. I'm not sure 3.2 should take over in December just yet. (There's also docs3.python.org that always lands at the latest 3.x documentation). However, there will be enough time to discuss this when 3.2 is actually about to be released. Georg -- Thus spake the Lord: Thou shalt indent with four spaces. No more, no less. Four shall be the number of spaces thou shalt indent, and the number of thy indenting shall be four. Eight shalt thou not indent, nor either indent thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Tabs are right out. ___ 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 6/27/2010 5:44 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: Am 22.06.2010 01:01, schrieb Terry Reedy: On 6/21/2010 3:59 PM, Steve Holden wrote: Terry Reedy wrote: On 6/21/2010 8:33 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: P.S. (We're going to have a tough decision to make somewhere along the line where docs.python.org is concerned, too - when do we flick the switch and make a 3.x version of the docs the default? Easy. When 3.2 is released. When 2.7 is released, 3.2 becomes 'trunk'. Trunk released always take over docs.python.org. To do otherwise would be to say that 3.2 is not a real trunk release and not yet ready for real use -- a major slam. Actually, I thought this was already discussed and decided ;-). This also gives the 2.7 release it's day in the sun before relegation to maintenance status. Every new version (except 3.0 and 3.1) has gone to maintenance status *and* becomes the featured release on docs.python.org the day it was released. 2.7 would just spend less time as the featured release on that page. I'm not sure 3.2 should take over in December just yet. (There's also docs3.python.org that always lands at the latest 3.x documentation). However, there will be enough time to discuss this when 3.2 is actually about to be released. Sure. Since I expect that the argument for treating 3.2 as a regular production-use-ready release will be stronger then than now, I agree on differing discussion. -- Terry Jan Reedy ___ 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)
Am 21.06.2010 17:13, schrieb Stephan Richter: On Monday, June 21, 2010, Nick Coghlan wrote: A decent listing of major packages that already support Python 3 would be very handy for the new Python2orPython3 page I created on the wiki, and easier to keep up-to-date. (the old Early2to3Migrations page didn't look particularly up to date, but hopefully we can keep the new list in a happier state). I really just want to be able to go to PyPI, Click on Browse packages and then select Python 3 (it can currently be accomplished by clicking Python and then 3). Or you can use the link Python 3 packages on PyPI's main menu. Regards, Martin ___ 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)
Sure. Since I expect that the argument for treating 3.2 as a regular production-use-ready release will be stronger then than now, I agree on differing discussion. I meant 'deferring' -- Terry Jan Reedy ___ 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 9:06 AM, Laurens Van Houtven l...@laurensvh.be wrote: Okay cool, we fixed it: http://python-commandments.org/python3.html People are otherwise happy with the text? Yep, looks pretty good to me. I hope you don't mind, but I actually borrowed your text to seed a corresponding page on the Python wiki: http://wiki.python.org/moin/Python2orPython3 It turns out the beginner's guide on the wiki doesn't even acknowledge the possibility of downloading Python 3.1 rather than 2.6 to start experimenting with Python. The Wiki is probably a good place for this kind of material, anyway - it makes it much easier for people to update as they identify major third party libraries that do and don't have Py3k compatible versions (and, some day, Python2 compatible versions). Cheers, Nick. P.S. (We're going to have a tough decision to make somewhere along the line where docs.python.org is concerned, too - when do we flick the switch and make a 3.x version of the docs the default? We probably won't need to seriously consider that question until the 3.3. time frame though). -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ 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)
I would suggest that if packages that do not have Python 3 support yet are listed, then their alternatives should also. PyQt has had Py3 support for some time. PostgreSQL and SQLite do (as does SQLAlchemy) CherryPy has had Py3 support for the last release cycle libxml2 does not, but lxml does. 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. Give credit where credit is due. :-) On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Laurens Van Houtven l...@laurensvh.be wrote: Okay cool, we fixed it: http://python-commandments.org/python3.html People are otherwise happy with the text? Yep, looks pretty good to me. I hope you don't mind, but I actually borrowed your text to seed a corresponding page on the Python wiki: http://wiki.python.org/moin/Python2orPython3 It turns out the beginner's guide on the wiki doesn't even acknowledge the possibility of downloading Python 3.1 rather than 2.6 to start experimenting with Python. The Wiki is probably a good place for this kind of material, anyway - it makes it much easier for people to update as they identify major third party libraries that do and don't have Py3k compatible versions (and, some day, Python2 compatible versions). Cheers, Nick. P.S. (We're going to have a tough decision to make somewhere along the line where docs.python.org is concerned, too - when do we flick the switch and make a 3.x version of the docs the default? We probably won't need to seriously consider that question until the 3.3. time frame though). -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ 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/arcriley%40gmail.com ___ 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 Jun 21, 2010, at 09:37 AM, Arc Riley wrote: 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. We're trying to get there for Ubuntu (driven also by Debian). We have Python 3.1.2 in main for Lucid, though we will probably not get 3.2 into Maverick (the October 2010 release). We're currently concentrating on Python 2.7 as a supported version because it'll be released by then, while 3.2 will still be in beta. If you want to help, or have complaints, kudos, suggestions, etc. for Python support on Ubuntu, you can contact me off-list. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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 11:37 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. PyQt has had Py3 support for some time. PostgreSQL and SQLite do (as does SQLAlchemy) CherryPy has had Py3 support for the last release cycle libxml2 does not, but lxml does. 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. Give credit where credit is due. :-) A decent listing of major packages that already support Python 3 would be very handy for the new Python2orPython3 page I created on the wiki, and easier to keep up-to-date. (the old Early2to3Migrations page didn't look particularly up to date, but hopefully we can keep the new list in a happier state). It just ticked past midnight for me, so I'm off to bed, but for anyone with a wiki account, have at it: http://wiki.python.org/moin/Python2orPython3 (Updating the beginner's guide to recognise Python 3 as a valid option would also be helpful: http://wiki.python.org/moin/BeginnersGuide) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ 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 09:57:30AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: On Jun 21, 2010, at 09:37 AM, Arc Riley wrote: 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. We're trying to get there for Ubuntu (driven also by Debian). We have Python 3.1.2 in main for Lucid, though we will probably not get 3.2 into Maverick (the October 2010 release). We're currently concentrating on Python 2.7 as a supported version because it'll be released by then, while 3.2 will still be in beta. If you want to help, or have complaints, kudos, suggestions, etc. for Python support on Ubuntu, you can contact me off-list. 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. Once most of the important third party packages are ported to python3 and in the distributions, this table will likely become out-dated and probably should be reaped but right now it's a very useful thing to see. -Toshio pgp4ovCkaMeKl.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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)
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. PyPI really needs a mechanism to cull out the moribund packages from being displayed next to the actively maintained ones. There's so many packages on there that only work on Python 2.2-2.4 (for example), or with a specific highly outdated version of another package, etc. On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Stephan Richter stephan.rich...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, June 21, 2010, Nick Coghlan wrote: A decent listing of major packages that already support Python 3 would be very handy for the new Python2orPython3 page I created on the wiki, and easier to keep up-to-date. (the old Early2to3Migrations page didn't look particularly up to date, but hopefully we can keep the new list in a happier state). I really just want to be able to go to PyPI, Click on Browse packages and then select Python 3 (it can currently be accomplished by clicking Python and then 3). Of course, package developers need to be encouraged to add these Trove classifiers so that the listings are as complete as possible. Regards, Stephan -- Entrepreneur and Software Geek Google me. Zope Stephan Richter ___ 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 6/21/2010 8:33 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: P.S. (We're going to have a tough decision to make somewhere along the line where docs.python.org is concerned, too - when do we flick the switch and make a 3.x version of the docs the default? Easy. When 3.2 is released. When 2.7 is released, 3.2 becomes 'trunk'. Trunk released always take over docs.python.org. To do otherwise would be to say that 3.2 is not a real trunk release and not yet ready for real use -- a major slam. Actually, I thought this was already discussed and decided ;-). Terry Jan Reedy ___ 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 6/21/2010 11:31 AM, Arc Riley 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. I do not think 2.x should be dissed any more than 3.x, which is to say, not at all. The impression I got from lurking on #python last night, in between disconnects, is that at least a couple of people feel that there is a move afoot to push people to Python3. Whether that had any connection to discussions here, I could not tell. Having pypi.python.org/py2 and pypi.python.org/py3 though might be a good idea. Inquiries from either url would automatically filter. The counterargument is that there may be people looking for packages available for *both*. Radical, I know, but at some point we really need to make this move. PyPI really needs a mechanism to cull out the moribund packages from being displayed next to the actively maintained ones. The default ordering for search results is by rating. There's so many packages on there that only work on Python 2.2-2.4 (for example), or with a specific highly outdated version of another package, etc. And there are people running those versions. I think better classification and filtering is the answer, though hard to mandate. Terry Jan Reedy ___ 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 Monday, June 21, 2010, Nick Coghlan wrote: A decent listing of major packages that already support Python 3 would be very handy for the new Python2orPython3 page I created on the wiki, and easier to keep up-to-date. (the old Early2to3Migrations page didn't look particularly up to date, but hopefully we can keep the new list in a happier state). I really just want to be able to go to PyPI, Click on Browse packages and then select Python 3 (it can currently be accomplished by clicking Python and then 3). Of course, package developers need to be encouraged to add these Trove classifiers so that the listings are as complete as possible. Regards, Stephan -- Entrepreneur and Software Geek Google me. Zope Stephan Richter ___ 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 Jun 21, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Stephan Richter wrote: I really just want to be able to go to PyPI, Click on Browse packages and then select Python 3 (it can currently be accomplished by clicking Python and then 3). Of course, package developers need to be encouraged to add these Trove classifiers so that the listings are as complete as possible. Trove classifiers are not particularly user friendly. I wonder if we can help with a (partially) automated or guided tool to help? Maybe something on the web page for packages w/o classifications, kind of like a Linked-in progress meter... -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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)
Laurens Van Houtven wrote: 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 But it's never too early to plan for something you know to be inevitable. More planning might have helped earlier on. I don't think it's likely to hurt now. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 See Python Video! http://python.mirocommunity.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS:http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/ All I want for my birthday is another birthday - Ian Dury, 1942-2000 ___ 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)
Terry Reedy wrote: On 6/21/2010 8:33 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: P.S. (We're going to have a tough decision to make somewhere along the line where docs.python.org is concerned, too - when do we flick the switch and make a 3.x version of the docs the default? Easy. When 3.2 is released. When 2.7 is released, 3.2 becomes 'trunk'. Trunk released always take over docs.python.org. To do otherwise would be to say that 3.2 is not a real trunk release and not yet ready for real use -- a major slam. Actually, I thought this was already discussed and decided ;-). This also gives the 2.7 release it's day in the sun before relegation to maintenance status. The Python 3 documents, when they become the default, should contain an every-page link to the Python 2 documentation (though linkages may be a problem - they could probably be done at a gross level). regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 See Python Video! http://python.mirocommunity.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS:http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/ All I want for my birthday is another birthday - Ian Dury, 1942-2000 ___ 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 Monday, June 21, 2010, Barry Warsaw wrote: On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Stephan Richter wrote: I really just want to be able to go to PyPI, Click on Browse packages and then select Python 3 (it can currently be accomplished by clicking Python and then 3). Of course, package developers need to be encouraged to add these Trove classifiers so that the listings are as complete as possible. Trove classifiers are not particularly user friendly. I wonder if we can help with a (partially) automated or guided tool to help? Maybe something on the web page for packages w/o classifications, kind of like a Linked-in progress meter... Yeah that would be good. I thought the Score was something like that, but it is not transparent enough. It would be great, if PyPI would tell me how I can improve my package meta-data. (The Linked-in progress meter worked for me too. ;-) Regards, Stephan -- Entrepreneur and Software Geek Google me. Zope Stephan Richter ___ 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 02:02, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote: After reading the discussion in the previous thread, signed in to #python and verified that the intro message starts with a lie about python3. I also verified that the official #python site links to Python Commandment Don't use Python 3… yet. Well, it *should* say: If you need to ask if you should use Python 2 or Python 3, you probably are better off with Python 2 for the moment. But that's a bit long. :-) -- Lennart Regebro: http://regebro.wordpress.com/ Python 3 Porting: http://python3porting.com/ +33 661 58 14 64 ___ 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 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 ___ 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)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 21 jun 2010, at 23:03, Lennart Regebro 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, That part of the topic will be replaced after all feedback is gathered on the new article Laurens provided at: http://python-commandments.org/python3.html as stated earlier in this thread. Regards, Simon de Vlieger -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMH9j1AAoJEBBSHP7i+JXf8qQP/1w6Esl/x6S5+4lDqykx0R7w M9v6x8G2JvnthTkzh2hF76vruLc4e3SNs1QVCmirh5vjdkRHneJQ/2w/dRVKLi2b /tayYg5QyzjPL37wiAarRnsr7SSiwFgEUCHWZVAAw0dRvszYF/CoLmxTs8TQWs8o KnRuwO4UHuXvtarqO8JeY6gMR4bwcdEXHVNqdRK+PSoRXH9IVJky6IcqwtTC0bzf vyLlQZmVdiXIXvjYOxNQgoufmsC74daqqodzhxtCn2WTHSN2s1ws/gkxBqe+NZPz zYlAukVSiLz/YMcK3NGZYukseT8ZBGiNMuhPVt3lb4SY2LnKVRUiYqNCp9wpWCr/ ASmjaZDU0Dz5I+PHSNCWC4NHyTNClPy3b4b9y3LJ/6hpNZaC3wGHTX5IDxQKjt5u ajEgzstM2wuZDtVNQhcADHk2KWBsCoaE9c0tXKz40T7nIq15zbbGqhyTXjmyouLB JoonSPbS5Ap1UY6RGWEt6t3ZdVDDnMwJzL/DBMOiMgWZIVf7B6/VPy0j9jV9U0WV Sx+U5WnaYqKYo+ZkRTg1iI6dPuK5GTGph+2gzjdTHRVMFFPETxkFz/pBZJG4DOHq bkaKG2IFMWB+Ua9GrTJTbfmTP3YzgJwBG34ZWRLFSQu7zJaY1JdQqQK7z+SCJ5Lg toMEpj7z8KxfUAF84xBG =hTod -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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 23:26, Simon de Vlieger si...@ikanobori.jp wrote: That part of the topic will be replaced after all feedback is gathered on the new article Laurens provided at: http://python-commandments.org/python3.html as stated earlier in this thread. OK, great, I missed that! -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64 ___ 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 6/21/2010 3:59 PM, Steve Holden wrote: Terry Reedy wrote: On 6/21/2010 8:33 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: P.S. (We're going to have a tough decision to make somewhere along the line where docs.python.org is concerned, too - when do we flick the switch and make a 3.x version of the docs the default? Easy. When 3.2 is released. When 2.7 is released, 3.2 becomes 'trunk'. Trunk released always take over docs.python.org. To do otherwise would be to say that 3.2 is not a real trunk release and not yet ready for real use -- a major slam. Actually, I thought this was already discussed and decided ;-). This also gives the 2.7 release it's day in the sun before relegation to maintenance status. Every new version (except 3.0 and 3.1) has gone to maintenance status *and* becomes the featured release on docs.python.org the day it was released. 2.7 would just spend less time as the featured release on that page. The Python 3 documents, when they become the default, should contain an every-page link to the Python 2 documentation (though linkages may be a problem - they could probably be done at a gross level). docs.python.org contains links to docs to other releases, both past and future. There is no reason to treat 3.2 specially, or to junk up its pages. The 3.x docs have intentionally been cleaned of nearly all references to 2.x. The current 2.6 and 2.7 pages have no references to corresponding 3.1 pages. Terry Jan Reedy ___ 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 11:08 PM, Nick Efford n.d.eff...@leeds.ac.uk wrote: 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). That's actually one of the better write-ups I've seen regarding several of the key benefits of the Python 3 transition. They're easy to lose sight of when discussing the topic with the existing developers that are bearing the cost of converting their code due to changes that were made primarily for the benefit of new users. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ 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)
Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: On Jun 19, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: HoweverI have very little experience with IRC and consequently have little idea what getting a permanent, owned, channel like #python entails. Hence the '?' that follows. What do others think? Sure, this is a good idea. Technically speaking, this is extremely easy. Somebody needs to /msg chanserv register #python3 and that's about it. (In this case, that someone may need to be Brett Cannon, since he is the official group contact for Freenode regarding Python-related channels.) Practically speaking, you will need a group of at least a dozen contributors, each in a different timezone, who sit there all day answering questions :). Otherwise the ownership of the channel is just a signpost pointing at an empty room. 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 -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 See Python Video! http://python.mirocommunity.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS:http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/ All I want for my birthday is another birthday - Ian Dury, 1942-2000 ___ 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] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
Laurens Van Houtven wrote: 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 And thanks for engaging so directly and responsively. The Python community has impressed me again with its maturity. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 See Python Video! http://python.mirocommunity.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS:http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/ All I want for my birthday is another birthday - Ian Dury, 1942-2000 ___ 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)
Am 20.06.2010 18:20, schrieb Laurens Van Houtven: 2.x or 3.x? http://tinyurl.com/py2or3 If you are interested, we could host any material that somebody would want to provide on http://python.org/py2or3 (which would be one letter shorter :-). We could also make this a redirect. Regards, Martin ___ 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)
Laurens Van Houtven writes: 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. 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. 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. 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!) 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 don't think it's a good idea to start encouraging NIH in new programmers :-) Agreed. ___ 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)
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. ___ 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] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
Am 20.06.2010 19:48, schrieb Stephen J. Turnbull: 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? I wouldn't say that, either - not more than Python 2 was a work in progress over the last 10 years. Regards, Martin ___ 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)
On 6/20/2010 6:35 AM, Laurens Van Houtven wrote: I'm one of the active people in #python that some people dislike for behavior with respect to Python 3. As I wrote, I disliked the observable, written behavior, now changed. You are obviously a fine person. We both love Python and have both contributed time for years to helping others with Python. The premise for this branch thread was: IF #python is really #python2 and somewhat anti-Python3, THEN (and only then), maybe we need a #python3. I am delighted that you have already refuted the premise with a new, much improved, splash topic. I now feel free to ask Python3 questions on the existing channel -- things like Is issue applicable to Python3? -- as I work on reviewing tracker issues. In that respect, this thread is finished for me. But I hope it is just the start of better cooperation and communication. Just a few notes in addition to other responses. First of all I'd like to defuse the situation. Excellently done. Also, I'm pretty sure nobody has ever said that Python 3.x was a failure, or anything like it. 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. --- 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. Of course, Asian schoolkids are unlikely to request help on #python. And the point about suggesting Python2 because that is what you all are good at helping with, is well taken. I do think people learning Python2 now should have a Python3-aware guide to doing so. This 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. Terry Jan Reedy ___ 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)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In reply to the recent post by Laurens and the vow I made to change the text which is presented on the python-commandments domain I have asked Laurens to write a new text on the subject. This message is a heads up to let all of you know that this new article is now available on the following URL: http://python-commandments.org/python3.html This article will probably be the featured article on #python's /topic regarding Python 2 or 3. I also read some remarks about possibly having an official article up on the Python website and in case that happens that will take the place of this article. Regards, Simon de Vlieger -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMHoQxAAoJEBBSHP7i+JXfGdUP/3NsUuMAJ2DONJZE4AbQIx5G n7UE/SD0teZpyrYYIzV/PI1m40xz5XBe+zJyNfGN7m+MNoW7lGIxHgBoTB5CU6eE 10LeNy2qR9eqRQ/NZ+t8GJul4zuGIocPglDqCX/M6KtFCmtDsgSgbLaMFEgI4lRs vZr9I9hUX9E1r+9T50uxo/YHQm+QW/HIYVks15nOoeUalkhxlQF67vvzH8/lds/F sl5DxXe/zo287GeOIjpDNI/+0KJtUTLop4S/cpVxxA5eNX9lgGztq1wmKCMQmKcB FS/WfQomyEhZhTk4CtIMQ7HM51bGUHwDeoO8qIOrayTM8ucoruO0QyzmZM0yxoDY G+GVYabTKKp9ICDaUvOMxYpRnuz/Xb10nb9HphutQ03cjR28bJLR8nuLUBmIzcJK ICXVIcV11hD01hzGWBJ7llQeoHl9ykaZu54PqpnZ/gdUrBVJ7VRItb5b4wP/PTwJ frtNvnVwBnuR9wfQmCV9Do1UVTAVUqjFRpoBujIgSaZCa1wyF5U+8eHVD26u8lDj +Hva28S/MggzIbc9x3/yv070204JaZVD1Q6fR5cSWdCMHgEDnwCmRjqlqLRW7zqS al4/JaxDiqa7RrB8+liFDijtqopy7K6a3vDK4BBHuyqWmJ9lGqVJzC0ynRE6DV7N 4+lJCEF9qLW++QgjHXR2 =qRiB -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Simon de Vlieger si...@ikanobori.jp wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In reply to the recent post by Laurens and the vow I made to change the text which is presented on the python-commandments domain I have asked Laurens to write a new text on the subject. This message is a heads up to let all of you know that this new article is now available on the following URL: http://python-commandments.org/python3.html That's a fairly decent write-up in my opinion. As Laurens pointed, it trends towards the use Python 3 if you can, Python 2 if you need to point of view, which I personally think is the right spin to be putting on this issue, but obviously opinions will vary on that front. About the only specific wording tweak I would suggest is that little regard for backwards compatibility should be phrased as less regard for backwards compatibility. There were still quite a few ideas we rejected as gratuitously incompatible, even for Py3k (the eventual decision to retain old-style string formatting comes to mind). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ 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 6/20/2010 5:53 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Simon de Vliegersi...@ikanobori.jp wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In reply to the recent post by Laurens and the vow I made to change the text which is presented on the python-commandments domain I have asked Laurens to write a new text on the subject. That's a fairly decent write-up in my opinion. As Laurens pointed, it trends towards the use Python 3 if you can, Python 2 if you need to point of view, which I personally think is the right spin to be putting on this issue, but obviously opinions will vary on that front. About the only specific wording tweak I would suggest is that little regard for backwards compatibility should be phrased as less regard for backwards compatibility. There were still quite a few ideas we rejected as gratuitously incompatible, even for Py3k (the eventual decision to retain old-style string formatting comes to mind). I have much the same opinion, and the ame suggestion, as Nick. People do not usually see the proposals that were rejected and the changes not made in 3.0. For those who *do* wish, there are about 25 items listed at http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3099/ Things that will Not Change in Python 3000 Nick listed one thing not on the list. Eliminating the duplicate method names in the unittest module is another. (In isolation, most everyone was in favor. Guido's reason for leaving the duplication: porting 2 to 3 is much easier with a good (and stable) test suite. Therefore, cleaning up unittest and possibly breaking test suites, even with a 2to3 conversion, would not be a good idea.) Terry Jan Reedy ___ 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)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20 jun 2010, at 23:53, Nick Coghlan wrote: About the only specific wording tweak I would suggest is that little regard for backwards compatibility should be phrased as less regard for backwards compatibility. There were still quite a few ideas we rejected as gratuitously incompatible, even for Py3k (the eventual decision to retain old-style string formatting comes to mind). I have changed this text to include the wording tweak. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMHp7DAAoJEBBSHP7i+JXfSkMQANw1SNroVYNkDUEJCIKtdKEJ HyGBMZpG0liUfqVf8YAjNRYEscpWtsS2Inh8PBlTUwo5OTZPmbggJVZGO17E7Z8k ld9TASppKraNZL62nBno5us2rnc2aUJL6GCaKPL1SQkk8GG1yLAV57j8d4R50QZS 4S7ogFPgVveM4VYEZXaZrlHpzlHjdh8xjq7f4Pl8IKJQZm6uOorK+sL+jiw0DauA UEJ53rx0agy8GRwtnOY7XvqP0lgXLfZ/axTW9e6FkKXBcHYv3qdEAvdC3wyF9OKJ nSNo7vIj4z24V7x9WQdIcc2wifHGPqSBSfnUc4Y3TPAaPLAjlX3HX3C4J+iFbI4/ c6VIm/OSPhcuclV0IgTJGvDOoyVlxTXFnOhOobXFI3KcAtCMQw5Y9gzx+4f5nahJ YMlu54lFhqMsBzsTMlYcispEbbAuban4aZH7JAZ645F/AMzGqiTUZyHgD+A+i+9P Ctu7DStT4tI/ZHcsqjnSkmpLxFhr3kNZct71aS22xOpm4MBAXmPEFYa2a/LpozHi pDhuKJbwNc/+lbgiK267IP+V2pfKQ73qMQhn6hq0IPAgBXNu8fHJ6af6bygmIr/S sK/0zddz3C2qCgqHmYGBwYfrmQB0fgM4ic9Zi2I9/flH+6cLolhSHkOqGkH1m0DQ totdE00iTLVuy6VEmMmm =NcT9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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)
On 20 Jun 2010, at 11:35, Laurens Van Houtven l...@laurensvh.be wrote: 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. Hey Laurens - I don't have an issue with with anything you've said, but given the topic is far more nuanced than an IRC topic can express maybe that just isn't the right place for it. Michael 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
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
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Laurens Van Houtven l...@laurensvh.be wrote: 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. 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; 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. That page could then be updated to give a more balance view of the pros of Python 3 (e.g. cleaner core language design, future direction of the language, much better Unicode support) and the pros of Python 2 (e.g. wider installed base, better current third party library support, greater existing developer base, larger support ecosystem, greater #python expertise) (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.) 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. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ 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, 20 Jun 2010 13:33:35 +0200 Laurens Van Houtven l...@laurensvh.be wrote: (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.) 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”. (I understand these are slightly tongue-in-cheek but, if this page is intented mainly for beginners, I think being descriptive is more valuable) Also, mention other support options there - primarily comp.lang.python, of course, and the official documentation pages. Regards Antoine. ___ 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)
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. 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. 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? Nobody need change their opinions or adovacy as a result, but it would have the benefit of presenting #python in a more neutral and inclusive light. 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. 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. 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. 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. Regards, Nick -- Dr Nick Efford, School of | E: n.d.eff...@leeds.ac.uk Computing, University of | T: +44 113 343 6809 Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK | W: http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nde/ --+- PGP fingerprint: 6ADF 16C2 4E2D 320B F537 8F3C 402D 1C78 A668 8492 ___ 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
[Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
After reading the discussion in the previous thread, signed in to #python and verified that the intro message starts with a lie about python3. I also verified that the official #python site links to Python Commandment Don't use Python 3… yet. The excuse that the negative commandment site is not part of the official site is does not wash. The #python site maintainer choose that as the authoritative word on the topic On using Python 2.x or Python 3.x. Since a fair, half-intelligent person would know that the usability of Python3 depends on the user, this all strikes as conscious sabotage. To me, this, along with other reports, is really ugly. I do not wish to fight such people; but I would rather ask python3 questions in a pro- rather than anti-python3 atmosphere. #python is certainly not a place that I would refer new people to. Given that the 'owners' of #python have been asked and refuse to remove their negative-opinion-stated-as-leading-headline-fact, it seems to me that we need a separate #python3 channel. The topic could be Welcome to discussion of Python3, the latest, greated version of Python. The first link might be to the current stable Python3 docs. Hence the '!' in the subject line. HoweverI have very little experience with IRC and consequently have little idea what getting a permanent, owned, channel like #python entails. Hence the '?' that follows. What do others think? ___ 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 Jun 19, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: HoweverI have very little experience with IRC and consequently have little idea what getting a permanent, owned, channel like #python entails. Hence the '?' that follows. What do others think? Sure, this is a good idea. Technically speaking, this is extremely easy. Somebody needs to /msg chanserv register #python3 and that's about it. (In this case, that someone may need to be Brett Cannon, since he is the official group contact for Freenode regarding Python-related channels.) Practically speaking, you will need a group of at least a dozen contributors, each in a different timezone, who sit there all day answering questions :). Otherwise the ownership of the channel is just a signpost pointing at an empty room. ___ 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 Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote: After reading the discussion in the previous thread, signed in to #python and verified that the intro message starts with a lie about python3. I also verified that the official #python site links to Python Commandment Don't use Python 3… yet. The excuse that the negative commandment site is not part of the official site is does not wash. The #python site maintainer choose that as the authoritative word on the topic On using Python 2.x or Python 3.x. Since a fair, half-intelligent person would know that the usability of Python3 depends on the user, this all strikes as conscious sabotage. To me, this, along with other reports, is really ugly. I do not wish to fight such people; but I would rather ask python3 questions in a pro- rather than anti-python3 atmosphere. #python is certainly not a place that I would refer new people to. Given that the 'owners' of #python have been asked and refuse to remove their negative-opinion-stated-as-leading-headline-fact, it seems to me that we need a separate #python3 channel. The topic could be Welcome to discussion of Python3, the latest, greated version of Python. The first link might be to the current stable Python3 docs. Hence the '!' in the subject line. HoweverI have very little experience with IRC and consequently have little idea what getting a permanent, owned, channel like #python entails. Hence the '?' that follows. What do others think? Seems like it turns a disagreement into a power struggle that python-dev is unlikely to win. If people here were interested in the irc, the irc culture would never have become as disconnected from the core group as it has, and even the most impassioned call isn't going to build an active community overnight. Furthermore, if #python has 200 people in it and #python3 is a ghost town, they can just tell anybody asking a python3 question to go to #python3 and snicker, reinforcing the widely held belief that python3 itself is a failure. It also runs the risk of hardening their existing position, and in any event begins the process of fracturing the community at a point where 3.x is probably not going to come out on top. Bottom line, what I'd really like to do is kick them all off of #python, but practically I see very little that can be done to rectify the situation at this point. Geremy Condra ___ 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 Jun 19, 2010, at 5:39 PM, geremy condra wrote: Bottom line, what I'd really like to do is kick them all off of #python, but practically I see very little that can be done to rectify the situation at this point. Here's something you can do: port libraries to python 3 and make the ecosystem viable. It's as simple as that. Nobody on #python has an ideological axe to grind, they just want to tell users to use tools which actually solve their problems. (Well, unless you think that helping users is ideological axe-grinding, in which case I think you may want to re-examine your own premises.) If Python 3 had all the features and libraries as Python 2, and ran in all the same places (for example, as Stephen Thorne reminded me when I asked him about this, the oldest supported version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux...) then it would be an equally viable answer on IRC. It's going to take a lot of work to get it to that point. Even if you write code, of course, it's too much work for one person to fill the whole gap. Have some patience. The PSF is funding these efforts, and more library authors are porting all the time. Eventually, resistance in forums like Freenode's #python will disappear. But you can't make it go away by wishing it away, you have to get rid of the cause. ___ 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 Jun 19, 2010, at 5:39 PM, geremy condra wrote: Bottom line, what I'd really like to do is kick them all off of #python, This is so profoundly wrong on so many levels it is hard to know how to respond. Raymond ___ 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 Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote: This is so profoundly wrong on so many levels it is hard to know how to respond. C'mon, Raymond, that's not any more helpful. Geremy wasn't trying to argue for that course of action; he was expression his frustration with the culture that's developed in #python. There's nothing wrong with frustration, and there's nothing wrong with expressing those -- or any -- feelings. Indeed, I'm happy that folks are blowing off a bit of steam here instead of doing something silly in public. Let's all try to simmer down here a little bit and cut each other some slack: this is a frustration situation, and we're not going to help it by heaping more fuel on the fire. Jacob ___ 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 11:19 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss ja...@jacobian.org wrote: Let's all try to simmer down here a little bit and cut each other some slack: this is a frustration situation, and we're not going to help it by heaping more fuel on the fire. The other thing to keep in mind is that there was a time when what the #python folks are still saying *wasn't wrong*. Yes, their advice is too negative for the situation as it stands now. But go back 12 or 18 months and their description would have been far more apt. It sounds like they're happy to update the relevant pages to provide a more balanced perspective now, and that's the important point. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ 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 Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 19, 2010, at 5:39 PM, geremy condra wrote: Bottom line, what I'd really like to do is kick them all off of #python, This is so profoundly wrong on so many levels it is hard to know how to respond. Alright, so, yeah- I said it in the heat of the moment and shouldn't have. I apologize. I just hate having to explain to folks that don't know any better that #python doesn't represent the opinions of the people who actually develop python, and I'm going to STFU before I get sucked into this again. Geremy Condra ___ 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