Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Peter Cacioppi peter.cacio...@gmail.com wrote: Moreover, you get a lot of the good stuff with 2.7. Along with more library support. So the smart decision is to code your project 2.7, even though the best thing for Pythonistan would be for us all to voluntarily migrate to 3.x. I won't flame you, but I will disagree with you :) You may get a lot of the good stuff with 2.7, but there are plenty of things you won't get - and the gap will widen with every Python release. As of 3.3, you're missing out on, among other things: * PEP 393 strings - high performance and perfect Unicode handling * 'yield from' * Major improvements to 'import' * High performance 'decimal' When 3.4 comes out, add to the list: * enumerations * asyncio * Argument Clinic (introspection) When 3.5 comes out, your 2.7 program will additionally be unable to use: * Who knows? * But it'll be exciting. If you insist on not moving to 3.x, I strongly recommend some future imports - unicode_literals, division, print_function - to make your 2.7 program behave more like a 3.x one. That'll ease the pain of transition, though you'll still probably run into problems with unicode vs bytes in places where your code used to be oblivious... which means your code will become guaranteed-correct when you move to 3.x, where the 2.7 version was merely accidentally-correct. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:12:57 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote: I said Even Bill F*ng Gates was reluctant to break back compatibility, Don't be fooled though, Python is *extremely* reluctant to break backwards compatibility too. That's why Python has the __future__ directive, and why some warts have ended up enshrined in the language. For example, although string exceptions were recognised as a bad idea for many years, there was a long deprecation process to get rid of them. It took at least 11 years to remove them completely: http://python-history.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/how-exceptions-came-to-be-classes.html Nick Coglan describes some of the completing pressures on a language like Python: http://www.boredomandlaziness.org/2011/04/musings-on-culture-of-python-dev.html Because of the tension between users demanding Python change more quickly, and those demanding it changes more slowly, you can't satisfy everyone. You probably can't even satisfy anyone. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
Chris The Angel said : I won't flame you, but I will disagree with you :) good, that's why I'm here ;) but there are plenty of things you won't get - and the gap will widen with very Python release. Yes I skimmed that laundry list before deciding. I still think I made the right decision. I'll port it someday. I'll own the iPhone 5s (or whatever the latest one is) someday. I'm not an early adopter kind of person. I'd like to think my project (which looks like it is getting funding, hooray!) will advance the glory of Pythonistan simply by doing cool stuff with 2.7. I'll port it someday (unless it flops, which won't happen, because I won't let it). Good discussion though, thanks! -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Peter Cacioppi peter.cacio...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to think my project (which looks like it is getting funding, hooray!) will advance the glory of Pythonistan simply by doing cool stuff with 2.7. I'll port it someday (unless it flops, which won't happen, because I won't let it). Which is why I mentioned those helpful __future__ directives, so you can code now and be better able to port in five years when you feel that it's important enough to do so. It's a good system. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 10/23/2013 09:57 PM, Peter Cacioppi wrote: Moreover, you get a lot of the good stuff with 2.7. And the good stuff in 2.7 makes it easier to take that last step to 3.x when the time comes to do so. -- ~Ethan~ -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 24/10/2013 01:18, Steven D'Aprano wrote: - the majority of packages on PyPI now support Python 3, so the Wall of Shame is now renamed the Wall of Superpowers: https://python3wos.appspot.com/ Thank you, thank you, thank you, it's been driving me nuts trying to remember what the flaming thing was called :) -- Python is the second best programming language in the world. But the best has yet to be invented. Christian Tismer Mark Lawrence -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 24/10/2013 01:17, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 14:27:29 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote: I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure having to compile code instead of having a binary install. Because it's trivially easy under Unix? Three commands: ./configure make make install will generally do the job. Unless it doesn't work, in which case it's a world of pain. But that's no different from Windows, except that somebody else has already worked through the pain for you. Precisely my point. I suspect being a Python core dev must do wonders for the moral fibre. Your pristine, fully reviewed patch improves performance by 10,000% and works wonderfully except on buildbot xyz and has to be reverted. How do they do it? -- Python is the second best programming language in the world. But the best has yet to be invented. Christian Tismer Mark Lawrence -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 24/10/2013 05:57, Peter Cacioppi wrote: Moreover, you get a lot of the good stuff with 2.7. Much of it backported from Python 3. -- Python is the second best programming language in the world. But the best has yet to be invented. Christian Tismer Mark Lawrence -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
dufriz at gmail.com writes: I am starting to have doubts as to whether Python 3.x will ever be actually adopted by the Python community at large as their standard. We're planning to start the switch on 25th December 2013, 14h UTC. It should be finished at most 48 hours later. You should expect some intermittent problems during the first few hours, but at the end all uses of Twisted will be replaced with Tornado and asyncio (and camelCase methods will have ceased to be). By the way, if you want to join us, one week later we'll also switch the Internet to IPv6 (except Germany). Regards Antoine. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Precisely my point. I suspect being a Python core dev must do wonders for the moral fibre. Your pristine, fully reviewed patch improves performance by 10,000% and works wonderfully except on buildbot xyz and has to be reverted. How do they do it? It's called Diplomacy, and it's a class skill for bards, clerics, druids, monks, paladins, rogues, and core developers. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote: dufriz at gmail.com writes: I am starting to have doubts as to whether Python 3.x will ever be actually adopted by the Python community at large as their standard. We're planning to start the switch on 25th December 2013, 14h UTC. It should be finished at most 48 hours later. You should expect some intermittent problems during the first few hours, but at the end all uses of Twisted will be replaced with Tornado and asyncio (and camelCase methods will have ceased to be). By the way, if you want to join us, one week later we'll also switch the Internet to IPv6 (except Germany). Excellent! It's about time. IPv4 depletion happened some time ago. What's your schedule for the replacement of Windows XP (with either a later Windows or with Linux, open to either option)? ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 24/10/2013 09:30, Antoine Pitrou wrote: dufriz at gmail.com writes: I am starting to have doubts as to whether Python 3.x will ever be actually adopted by the Python community at large as their standard. We're planning to start the switch on 25th December 2013, 14h UTC. It should be finished at most 48 hours later. You should expect some intermittent problems during the first few hours, but at the end all uses of Twisted will be replaced with Tornado and asyncio (and camelCase methods will have ceased to be). By the way, if you want to join us, one week later we'll also switch the Internet to IPv6 (except Germany). Regards Antoine. You forgot to mention that the whole world is switching to driving on the left hand side of the road at the same time. -- Python is the second best programming language in the world. But the best has yet to be invented. Christian Tismer Mark Lawrence -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 24/10/2013 09:37, Chris Angelico wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote: dufriz at gmail.com writes: I am starting to have doubts as to whether Python 3.x will ever be actually adopted by the Python community at large as their standard. We're planning to start the switch on 25th December 2013, 14h UTC. It should be finished at most 48 hours later. You should expect some intermittent problems during the first few hours, but at the end all uses of Twisted will be replaced with Tornado and asyncio (and camelCase methods will have ceased to be). By the way, if you want to join us, one week later we'll also switch the Internet to IPv6 (except Germany). Excellent! It's about time. IPv4 depletion happened some time ago. What's your schedule for the replacement of Windows XP (with either a later Windows or with Linux, open to either option)? ChrisA Sorry, there's problems with all version of both Windows and Linux so we're reverting with immediate effect to VMS. -- Python is the second best programming language in the world. But the best has yet to be invented. Christian Tismer Mark Lawrence -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
Angelico said: Which is why I mentioned those helpful __future__ directives, OK, thanks, I'll study the __future__. I will port to 3.x in less than 60 months, or my name isn't Cacioppi. (So, in the worst case, I might have to backport a change to my name). -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:43:18 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote: On 24/10/2013 09:30, Antoine Pitrou wrote: dufriz at gmail.com writes: I am starting to have doubts as to whether Python 3.x will ever be actually adopted by the Python community at large as their standard. We're planning to start the switch on 25th December 2013, 14h UTC. It should be finished at most 48 hours later. You should expect some intermittent problems during the first few hours, but at the end all uses of Twisted will be replaced with Tornado and asyncio (and camelCase methods will have ceased to be). By the way, if you want to join us, one week later we'll also switch the Internet to IPv6 (except Germany). Regards Antoine. You forgot to mention that the whole world is switching to driving on the left hand side of the road at the same time. that is not true, because of the scale of the problem Bicycles will be switching 1st with cars lorries switching a week later. -- Children aren't happy without something to ignore, And that's what parents were created for. -- Ogden Nash -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
I am starting to have doubts as to whether Python 3.x will ever be actually adopted by the Python community at large as their standard. Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. Why am I bothered by this? Because of lot of good libraries are still only for version 2.x, and there is no sign of their being updated for v3.x. I get the impression as if 3.x, despite being better and more advanced than 2.x from the technical point of view, is a bit of a letdown in terms of adoption. Some Linux distributions will certainly switch to Python 3 by default, sooner or later. Fedora has decided to do so for their 22 release: http://lwn.net/Articles/571528/ -- DW -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
Am 24.10.2013 14:29, schrieb Damien Wyart: I am starting to have doubts as to whether Python 3.x will ever be actually adopted by the Python community at large as their standard. Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. Why am I bothered by this? Because of lot of good libraries are still only for version 2.x, and there is no sign of their being updated for v3.x. I get the impression as if 3.x, despite being better and more advanced than 2.x from the technical point of view, is a bit of a letdown in terms of adoption. Some Linux distributions will certainly switch to Python 3 by default, sooner or later. Fedora has decided to do so for their 22 release: http://lwn.net/Articles/571528/ -- DW Saucy Salamander (Ubuntu 13.10, released oct 17th) comes with Python 3.3. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 10/24/13 9:29 AM, Damien Wyart wrote: I am starting to have doubts as to whether Python 3.x will ever be actually adopted by the Python community at large as their standard. Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. Why am I bothered by this? Because of lot of good libraries are still only for version 2.x, and there is no sign of their being updated for v3.x. I get the impression as if 3.x, despite being better and more advanced than 2.x from the technical point of view, is a bit of a letdown in terms of adoption. Some Linux distributions will certainly switch to Python 3 by default, sooner or later. Fedora has decided to do so for their 22 release: http://lwn.net/Articles/571528/ I'm not sure what by default means, I hope it isn't that python runs Python 3.x. That causes massive confusion on Arch, and will make it very difficult to support a mixed environment. --Ned. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 10/24/2013 1:31 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote: On 10/24/13 9:29 AM, Damien Wyart wrote: I am starting to have doubts as to whether Python 3.x will ever be actually adopted by the Python community at large as their standard. Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. Why am I bothered by this? Because of lot of good libraries are still only for version 2.x, and there is no sign of their being updated for v3.x. I get the impression as if 3.x, despite being better and more advanced than 2.x from the technical point of view, is a bit of a letdown in terms of adoption. Some Linux distributions will certainly switch to Python 3 by default, sooner or later. Fedora has decided to do so for their 22 release: http://lwn.net/Articles/571528/ I'm not sure what by default means, I hope it isn't that python runs Python 3.x. That causes massive confusion on Arch, and will make it very difficult to support a mixed environment. It means that 3.x is always present (with 2.x an option) and Fedora's Python code works with the always-present version. The actual proposal (FEP? ;-): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_3_as_Default ''' The main goal is switching to Python 3 as a default, in which state: DNF is the default package manager instead of Yum, which only works with Python 2 Python 3 is the only Python implementation in the minimal buildroot Python 3 is the only Python implementation on the LiveCD Anaconda and all of its dependencies run on Python 3 cloud-init and all of its dependencies run on Python 3 ''' ... Upstream recommends that /usr/bin/python point to Python 2 runtime for the time being, so if we go with that, there shouldn't be any serious compatibility impact: -- Terry Jan Reedy -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 23/10/2013 9:13 AM, Tim Golden wrote: On 23/10/2013 14:05, Colin J. Williams wrote: On 23/10/2013 8:35 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote: On 23/10/2013 12:57, duf...@gmail.com wrote: Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. The changes aren't large enough to worry a Python programmer so effectively there's nothing to learn, other than how to run 2to3. ...there is no sign of their being updated for v3.x. Could have fooled me. The number is growing all the time. The biggest problem is likely (IMHO) to be the sheer size of the code base and limitations on manpower. I get the impression as if 3.x, despite being better and more advanced than 2.x from the technical point of view, is a bit of a letdown in terms of adoption. I agree with this technical aspect, other than the disastrous flexible string representation, which has been repeatedly shot to pieces by, er, one idiot :) As for adaption we'll get there so please don't do a Captain Mainwearing[1] and panic. People should also be pursuaded by watching this from Brett Cannon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebyz66jPyJg Just my 2 pence worth. [1] From the extremely popular BBC TV series Dad's Army of the late 60s and 70s. It would be good if more of the packages were available, for Python 3.3, in binary for the Windows user. I am currently wrestling with Pandas, lxml etc. Can I assume you're aware of the industrious Christopher Gohlke? http://www.lfd.uci.edu/~gohlke/pythonlibs/ TJG Tim, Many thanks. I have installed lxml. help(lxml) looks good. I'll keep this link for future use. It would be good if, after some verification process for each package, it could be included in PyPi. Colin W. PS A problem in building lxml from source is that the build expects ?Cygwin? and I have Mingw32 installed. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
I am starting to have doubts as to whether Python 3.x will ever be actually adopted by the Python community at large as their standard. Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. Why am I bothered by this? Because of lot of good libraries are still only for version 2.x, and there is no sign of their being updated for v3.x. I get the impression as if 3.x, despite being better and more advanced than 2.x from the technical point of view, is a bit of a letdown in terms of adoption. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 23 October 2013 22:57, duf...@gmail.com wrote: a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. OMG. Please provide their names. We'll send Doug Dinsdale. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 23/10/2013 12:57, duf...@gmail.com wrote: Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. The changes aren't large enough to worry a Python programmer so effectively there's nothing to learn, other than how to run 2to3. ...there is no sign of their being updated for v3.x. Could have fooled me. The number is growing all the time. The biggest problem is likely (IMHO) to be the sheer size of the code base and limitations on manpower. I get the impression as if 3.x, despite being better and more advanced than 2.x from the technical point of view, is a bit of a letdown in terms of adoption. I agree with this technical aspect, other than the disastrous flexible string representation, which has been repeatedly shot to pieces by, er, one idiot :) As for adaption we'll get there so please don't do a Captain Mainwearing[1] and panic. People should also be pursuaded by watching this from Brett Cannon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebyz66jPyJg Just my 2 pence worth. [1] From the extremely popular BBC TV series Dad's Army of the late 60s and 70s. -- Python is the second best programming language in the world. But the best has yet to be invented. Christian Tismer Mark Lawrence -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 2013-10-23, David bouncingc...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 October 2013 22:57, duf...@gmail.com wrote: a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. OMG. Please provide their names. We'll send Doug Dinsdale. I can send Mr. Wendt and Mr. Kidd. Or are those guys dead? -- Neil Cerutti -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:16 PM, David bouncingc...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 October 2013 22:57, duf...@gmail.com wrote: a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. OMG. Please provide their names. We'll send Doug Dinsdale. Who and who? Re the subject line: As far as I'm concerned, it already is. Just use it, now it's standard. That's what it takes... and that's all it takes. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 23/10/2013 13:16, David wrote: On 23 October 2013 22:57, duf...@gmail.com wrote: a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. OMG. Please provide their names. We'll send Doug Dinsdale. Please ensure that they're accompanied by the chief constable carrying the tactical thermonuclear missile just in case of trouble as sometimes the combination of nailing heads to coffee tables and sarcasm just isn't enough. -- Python is the second best programming language in the world. But the best has yet to be invented. Christian Tismer Mark Lawrence -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
In article 6e0bbc6b-9435-4a4b-8840-8a46cc4e0...@googlegroups.com, duf...@gmail.com wrote: I am starting to have doubts as to whether Python 3.x will ever be actually adopted by the Python community at large as their standard. Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. Why am I bothered by this? Because of lot of good libraries are still only for version 2.x, and there is no sign of their being updated for v3.x. It's a chicken-and-egg thing. People aren't moving because the libraries they depend on don't yet support P3, so there's not a lot of people using P3, so there's not a lot of pressure for libraries to support it, etc. Here's our list of external Python dependencies (mostly installed with pip, a few of the harder to build ones we install as binaries with apt-get). I'll annotate them with what P3 support is available. I'm doing this quickly, so may not be 100% accurate (and I ran out of time, so I started just looking at the major ones): argparse==1.2.1 # included in P3 beanstalkc==0.3.0 # no support blinker==1.2 # P3 supported boto==2.5.1 # no support dateglob==0.1 # no support, probably not critical decorator==3.3.3 # P3 supported django==1.4.5 # P3 support in 1.6 (RC just released) django-multi-sessions==0.1.0# no support, probably not critical django-timedeltafield==0.7.0# no support, probably not critical dnspython==1.11.0 # P3 supported elasticsearch==0.4.2 # no support (unclear) Fabric==1.7.0 # eventual Python 3.x compatibility gevent==0.13.8# no support grequests==0.2.0 # no support gunicorn==0.17.4 # P3 supported jellyfish==0.2.0 # no support Jinja2==2.7.1 # upcoming support for P3 leveldb==0.19 # no support lxml==2.2.4 # P3 supported markdown==2.3.1 MarkupSafe==0.18 mongoengine==0.7.10 # P3 support on the roadmap for 0.9 release mrjob==0.4 msgpack-python==0.3.0 nose==1.3.0 numpy==1.6.1 # some [...] packages still only work on Python 2 pandas==0.9.1 paramiko==1.11.0 Paste==1.7.2 PIL==1.1.7 prettytable==0.7 psycopg2==2.5 pyasn1==0.1.7 pymongo==2.5.2 # P3 supported pyparsing==1.5.2 pysnmp==4.2.3 python-cjson==1.0.5 python-dateutil==1.4.1 python-memcached==1.53 pytz==2010b pyzmq==13.1.0 requests==1.2.0 # P3 supported rpclib==2.7.0-beta scipy==0.9.0 setproctitle==1.1.6 statsd==2.0.3 suds==0.4 tornado==3.1 ujson==1.23 Unidecode==0.04.5 unittest2==0.5.1 I get the impression as if 3.x, despite being better and more advanced than 2.x from the technical point of view, is a bit of a letdown in terms of adoption. I would agree. I think the handwriting is on the wall that we'll get there eventually, but it's taking a lot longer than I would have expected. I think we're at the point where most major projects either already support P3, or at least have it on their roadmaps, and people learning Python in school are starting to be taught P3 instead of P2. But I think we're not going to see P3 be the predominant version for several more years. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 23/10/2013 8:35 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote: On 23/10/2013 12:57, duf...@gmail.com wrote: Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. The changes aren't large enough to worry a Python programmer so effectively there's nothing to learn, other than how to run 2to3. ...there is no sign of their being updated for v3.x. Could have fooled me. The number is growing all the time. The biggest problem is likely (IMHO) to be the sheer size of the code base and limitations on manpower. I get the impression as if 3.x, despite being better and more advanced than 2.x from the technical point of view, is a bit of a letdown in terms of adoption. I agree with this technical aspect, other than the disastrous flexible string representation, which has been repeatedly shot to pieces by, er, one idiot :) As for adaption we'll get there so please don't do a Captain Mainwearing[1] and panic. People should also be pursuaded by watching this from Brett Cannon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebyz66jPyJg Just my 2 pence worth. [1] From the extremely popular BBC TV series Dad's Army of the late 60s and 70s. It would be good if more of the packages were available, for Python 3.3, in binary for the Windows user. I am currently wrestling with Pandas, lxml etc. Colin W. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 23/10/2013 14:05, Colin J. Williams wrote: On 23/10/2013 8:35 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote: On 23/10/2013 12:57, duf...@gmail.com wrote: Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. The changes aren't large enough to worry a Python programmer so effectively there's nothing to learn, other than how to run 2to3. ...there is no sign of their being updated for v3.x. Could have fooled me. The number is growing all the time. The biggest problem is likely (IMHO) to be the sheer size of the code base and limitations on manpower. I get the impression as if 3.x, despite being better and more advanced than 2.x from the technical point of view, is a bit of a letdown in terms of adoption. I agree with this technical aspect, other than the disastrous flexible string representation, which has been repeatedly shot to pieces by, er, one idiot :) As for adaption we'll get there so please don't do a Captain Mainwearing[1] and panic. People should also be pursuaded by watching this from Brett Cannon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebyz66jPyJg Just my 2 pence worth. [1] From the extremely popular BBC TV series Dad's Army of the late 60s and 70s. It would be good if more of the packages were available, for Python 3.3, in binary for the Windows user. I am currently wrestling with Pandas, lxml etc. Can I assume you're aware of the industrious Christopher Gohlke? http://www.lfd.uci.edu/~gohlke/pythonlibs/ TJG -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 23/10/2013 14:13, Tim Golden wrote: On 23/10/2013 14:05, Colin J. Williams wrote: It would be good if more of the packages were available, for Python 3.3, in binary for the Windows user. I am currently wrestling with Pandas, lxml etc. Can I assume you're aware of the industrious Christopher Gohlke? http://www.lfd.uci.edu/~gohlke/pythonlibs/ TJG Thankfully I am. I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure having to compile code instead of having a binary install. To me it's like going to the garage to buy a new car, being shown the parts and the tool kit and being told to get on with it. Perhaps it's a case of second class treatment for users of a second class OS? Ducks and runs for cover :) -- Python is the second best programming language in the world. But the best has yet to be invented. Christian Tismer Mark Lawrence -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 23/10/2013 14:52, Skip Montanaro wrote: Thankfully I am. I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure having to compile code instead of having a binary install. To me it's like going to the garage to buy a new car, being shown the parts and the tool kit and being told to get on with it. Perhaps it's a case of second class treatment for users of a second class OS? Ducks and runs for cover :) And we can't understand how you can put up without source. :-) Also, Unix isn't one platform like Windows, ABI incompatibility and all. Really, for most things these days it's just pip install foo Disregarding Mark's tongue-in-cheek rhetoric for now... perhaps you didn't realise that, on Windows, you can't pip install a binary (that's a problem the new wheel format is solving). And, even if you have the correct compiler toolchain, building more complex packages from source can be daunting, essentially because of the lack of standard source layout on Windows. TJG -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 23/10/2013 14:52, Skip Montanaro wrote: Thankfully I am. I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure having to compile code instead of having a binary install. To me it's like going to the garage to buy a new car, being shown the parts and the tool kit and being told to get on with it. Perhaps it's a case of second class treatment for users of a second class OS? Ducks and runs for cover :) And we can't understand how you can put up without source. :-) Also, Unix isn't one platform like Windows, ABI incompatibility and all. Really, for most things these days it's just pip install foo Skip Which on Windows often ends up telling you that it can't find vcvarsall.bat, i.e. you don't have the appropriate version (if any) of the compiler installed. You then realise your mistake, go to the bookmarked link Tim Golden referred to earlier, and a minute or two later job done. -- Python is the second best programming language in the world. But the best has yet to be invented. Christian Tismer Mark Lawrence -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 23/10/2013 15:01, Tim Golden wrote: On 23/10/2013 14:52, Skip Montanaro wrote: Thankfully I am. I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure having to compile code instead of having a binary install. To me it's like going to the garage to buy a new car, being shown the parts and the tool kit and being told to get on with it. Perhaps it's a case of second class treatment for users of a second class OS? Ducks and runs for cover :) And we can't understand how you can put up without source. :-) Also, Unix isn't one platform like Windows, ABI incompatibility and all. Really, for most things these days it's just pip install foo Disregarding Mark's tongue-in-cheek rhetoric for now... Never :) perhaps you didn't realise that, on Windows, you can't pip install a binary (that's a problem the new wheel format is solving). And, even if you have the correct compiler toolchain, building more complex packages from source can be daunting, essentially because of the lack of standard source layout on Windows. TJG Thanks for the heads up. I didn't realise that wheel solved this problem. From my viewpoint thats the bee's knees. -- Python is the second best programming language in the world. But the best has yet to be invented. Christian Tismer Mark Lawrence -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
Tim: Disregarding Mark's tongue-in-cheek rhetoric for now... perhaps you didn't realise that, on Windows, you can't pip install a binary Mark: Which on Windows often ends up telling you that it can't find vcvarsall.bat I am well aware that Windows users rarely have compilers available. Perhaps neither of you realized that I was responding to Mark's comment that, I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure having to compile code instead of having a binary install. On Unix systems most of the time people never invoke a compiler directly to install from source. Heck, they often don't need to download directly, as pip install whatever takes care of all that drudgery. Skip -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
Thankfully I am. I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure having to compile code instead of having a binary install. To me it's like going to the garage to buy a new car, being shown the parts and the tool kit and being told to get on with it. Perhaps it's a case of second class treatment for users of a second class OS? Ducks and runs for cover :) And we can't understand how you can put up without source. :-) Also, Unix isn't one platform like Windows, ABI incompatibility and all. Really, for most things these days it's just pip install foo Skip -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 23/10/2013 15:34, Skip Montanaro wrote: Tim: Disregarding Mark's tongue-in-cheek rhetoric for now... perhaps you didn't realise that, on Windows, you can't pip install a binary Mark: Which on Windows often ends up telling you that it can't find vcvarsall.bat I am well aware that Windows users rarely have compilers available. Perhaps neither of you realized that I was responding to Mark's comment that, I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure having to compile code instead of having a binary install. On Unix systems most of the time people never invoke a compiler directly to install from source. Heck, they often don't need to download directly, as pip install whatever takes care of all that drudgery. Fair enough -- I thought you were implying that pip install had magically solved all problems of source or binary installation. Clearly you weren't, so my points about the problems still faced on Windows are rather moot. :) TJG -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 10/23/13 7:57 AM, duf...@gmail.com wrote: Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. That's true for me. My own projects run just fine with 2.7. I have no specific issue with 3.x, nor phobia of it, but my time as a developer is limited, and I'd rather use it to add features to my apps using the stable base of 2.7 rather than go through the headaches of modifying my codebase to accommodate the differences with 3.x. This is something that's On My List to Do Someday, but right now there's no real upside to it for my apps. As long as 2.7 is supported, I'll probably continue to use it. --Kevin -- Kevin Walzer Code by Kevin/Mobile Code by Kevin http://www.codebykevin.com http://www.wtmobilesoftware.com -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On 2013-10-23, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On 23/10/2013 14:13, Tim Golden wrote: On 23/10/2013 14:05, Colin J. Williams wrote: It would be good if more of the packages were available, for Python 3.3, in binary for the Windows user. I am currently wrestling with Pandas, lxml etc. Can I assume you're aware of the industrious Christopher Gohlke? http://www.lfd.uci.edu/~gohlke/pythonlibs/ TJG Thankfully I am. I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure having to compile code instead of having a binary install. To me it's like going to the garage to buy a new car, being shown the parts and the tool kit and being told to get on with it. Perhaps it's a case of second class treatment for users of a second class OS? Ducks and runs for cover :) They usually don't. Users of most distributions have an awesome device called a package manager. -- Neil Cerutti -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, duf...@gmail.com wrote: I am starting to have doubts as to whether Python 3.x will ever be actually adopted by the Python community at large as their standard. Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. Why am I bothered by this? Because of lot of good libraries are still only for version 2.x, and there is no sign of their being updated for v3.x. I get the impression as if 3.x, despite being better and more advanced than 2.x from the technical point of view, is a bit of a letdown in terms of adoption. When 3.x came out, the python-dev folks practically commanded us to wait a while before diving in. I think things are mostly going according to plan. I think some little-used libraries will never get moved over. We've been seeing that 2to3 and 3to2 aren't really the main way of moving things to 3.x; instead, we're seeing a lot of code written to run, unmodified on both 2.x and 3.x. This was a bit of a surprise, I think. A document I wrote about how to do this is at http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/~dstromberg/Intro-to-Python/ I find the differences between 2.x and 3.x rather small, actually. If some people keep chanting never going to happen, it probably won't - for them. Personally, I've been coding greenfield projects in 3.x only and liking it, and I wrote one ~10,000 line project to run on both: http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/~strombrg/backshift/ HTH -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 14:27:29 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote: I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure having to compile code instead of having a binary install. Because it's trivially easy under Unix? Three commands: ./configure make make install will generally do the job. Unless it doesn't work, in which case it's a world of pain. But that's no different from Windows, except that somebody else has already worked through the pain for you. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 04:57:25 -0700, dufriz wrote: I am starting to have doubts as to whether Python 3.x will ever be actually adopted by the Python community at large as their standard. Of course it will. Python 2.7 is the last of the 2 series. It will be given extended support, but eventually -- probably another five years or so -- it will be no longer supported, just like Python 1.5 is no longer supported. Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. It's not like the differences are hard to learn. Even a mediocre programmer can learn the differences in semantics and syntax in about five minutes -- if you remember print is a function, you're about half- way there. Differences to the standard library are more extensive, but still easy to learn. Why am I bothered by this? Because of lot of good libraries are still only for version 2.x, and there is no sign of their being updated for v3.x. What do you call a lot? A million? Ten? I get the impression as if 3.x, despite being better and more advanced than 2.x from the technical point of view, is a bit of a letdown in terms of adoption. Don't panic, the plan was always that the migration from 2 to 3 would take about a decade. We're only half-way through it, and the migration is proceeding according to plan: - the majority of packages on PyPI now support Python 3, so the Wall of Shame is now renamed the Wall of Superpowers: https://python3wos.appspot.com/ - big, important projects like numpy, scipy, django, zope, docutils etc. now have either full Python 3 support, partial support, or are actively working on it - As of June this year, 39 of the top 50 downloaded projects from PyPI had Python 3 support: http://py3ksupport.appspot.com/ - It's not just CPython, other implementations like Nuitika, PyPy and Cython have partial or full support for Python 3. So don't worry about it. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
On Wednesday 23 October 2013 19:53:20 Dennis Lee Bieber did opine: On 23 Oct 2013 12:36:09 GMT, Neil Cerutti ne...@norwich.edu declaimed the following: On 2013-10-23, David bouncingc...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 October 2013 22:57, duf...@gmail.com wrote: a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. OMG. Please provide their names. We'll send Doug Dinsdale. I can send Mr. Wendt and Mr. Kidd. Or are those guys dead? I could swear one of them is taking part in a smartphone commercial... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slf3GgxqusI 22 seconds in... There's always their look-alikes from Codename: Kids Next Door: Mr. Wink and Mr. Fibb Just one more question: Did Antony and Luigi, from the amiga days, retire? Cheers, Gene -- There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Q: Why did Menachem Begin invade Lebanon? A: To impress Jodie Foster. A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than 200 million guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
It's an interesting issue. Back compatibility was broken with 3.x, which is always a risky move. Even Bill F*ng Gates was reluctant to break back compatibility, and he basically ruled the world (for about 20 minutes or so, but still). Moreover, you get a lot of the good stuff with 2.7. Along with more library support. So the smart decision is to code your project 2.7, even though the best thing for Pythonistan would be for us all to voluntarily migrate to 3.x. At least that's my read on it. Feel free to flame if I'm out of my depth here, it wouldn't be the first time. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?
I said Even Bill F*ng Gates was reluctant to break back compatibility, Reluctant to do so with his own stuff. Obviously he embraced and extended other peoples work. Don't get me started, Gates is Bizarro Guido. Good work with vaccines though. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
