[web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
I'm all for having not spending effort to move to Python 3 due to resource constraints etc. However, I am curious as to whether having a minimum viable python 3 port will help bring more eyeballs/users to web2py, since hardly any python web frameworks have moved to Python 3. The main development effort will still be on web2py. But I am hoping that any marketing effect of the python 3 port will spill over to web2py. On Jul 16, 9:16 am, Massimo Di Pierro wrote: > +1 > > On Jul 13, 11:26 am, Bruno Rocha wrote: > > > > > > > > > May be, the new project could be a kind of merge with Bottle > > (http://bottlepy.org/docs/dev/, Web2py libs fits perfectly with Bottle, and > > bottle has a very nice base system. Maybe we cam have a bottle2py-project > > with Python3 as goal.
[web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
+1 On Jul 13, 11:26 am, Bruno Rocha wrote: > May be, the new project could be a kind of merge with Bottle > (http://bottlepy.org/docs/dev/, Web2py libs fits perfectly with Bottle, and > bottle has a very nice base system. Maybe we cam have a bottle2py-project > with Python3 as goal.
[web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
for the record, i -only- use py3. python 3.2 came out almost half a year ago and i deployed it on my pack of servers a couple months ago. everything i do is in 3.2 now. previously i used 3.1. i've ported a few projects to py3 for my own uses - tried to provide patches but many packages are dormant. our data centers have quite a mix of installations, even back to the ancient 2.4. it really isn't -that- hard to write code that runs on both 3.2 and 2.4. performance? i've heard that mention of the py3 running slower than py2, but that water went under the bridge a long time back and it seems to me more like a religious misdirection than a legitimate argument. it depends what you're doing and how you're doing it. i can make py2 code abysmally slow and py3 code scream. many of us py3 people have ported things already but there's such a stalwart opposition to updating, that we sound like a lonely broken record when we provide patches. what's better in 3 than 2? i don't know off the top of my head. it's been forever since i wrote in py2 and i played with the "new and improved" in py3 so far back, that it's not new and improved any more, and used so frequently, that i couldn't set it apart from anything else. my current project is wsgi focused. py3 has a wsgi module built into it. it just works, beautifully. i store millions of rows of data in psql and generate a bunch of PDF and html reports based on thousands of servers. i've wanted to use web2py, but i don't have the free time at present and i don't have any of my server farm that runs py2 to bridge anything and i can't abscond with customer datacenter servers. so please don't think that nobody uses py3. you'll probably find very few people -here- talk about py3, mostly because your project doesn't support it and the general consensus seems to be that you'll get around to it - some day, as another project. if you spend all your time in the orange grove, you probably won't find many cherry trees. >:-} -david
[web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
I am fine with "Web3py". Atleast we start a step that way towards Python 3.x .. On Jul 13, 7:28 pm, Caleb Hattingh wrote: > Agreed, I think web2py on Py3 is pointless. > > An entirely different project, called, let's say, web3py, which runs on Py3 > is a different animal altogether... > > On 13 July 2011 15:50, Anthony wrote: > > > > > > > > > The problem is, it would break backward compatibility. > > > On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 12:54:57 AM UTC-4, Rahul wrote: > > >> Its true that there are existing python versions 2.6, 2.7.x but what I > >> would like is Web2py support for Python 3. > >> Reasons: > >> 1. We should provide early support for Python 3 (regardless of what > >> wsgi standard it will provide) because it may trigger a lot of python > >> users to adopt Web2py as it might be the ONLY Full Stack Framework > >> that will be supporting Python 3 > >> 2. Python 3.x is the future of Python (I see this to be very true) > >> Eventually we would all be using Python 3.x in our production > >> systems. > >> 3. Lets progress rather than remaining stagnant with existing versions > >> of Python only. I mean Why Not the latest Python ?? > > >> Cheers, Rahul D > > >> On Jul 12, 5:38 pm, pbreit wrote: > >> > I suspect 2.6 is going to be popular for some time since that's what's > >> in > >> > the current Ubuntu LTS (10.04).
Re: [web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
May be, the new project could be a kind of merge with Bottle ( http://bottlepy.org/docs/dev/, Web2py libs fits perfectly with Bottle, and bottle has a very nice base system. Maybe we cam have a bottle2py-project with Python3 as goal.
Re: [web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
Is it worth calling the prototype version *before* web3py: web3000py? Or would that be unbearably geeky? Sent from my iPad On 13 Jul 2011, at 5:21 PM, Massimo Di Pierro wrote: > +1 > > On Jul 13, 9:28 am, Caleb Hattingh wrote: >> Agreed, I think web2py on Py3 is pointless. >> >> An entirely different project, called, let's say, web3py, which runs on Py3 >> is a different animal altogether... >> >> On 13 July 2011 15:50, Anthony wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> The problem is, it would break backward compatibility. >> >>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 12:54:57 AM UTC-4, Rahul wrote: >> Its true that there are existing python versions 2.6, 2.7.x but what I would like is Web2py support for Python 3. Reasons: 1. We should provide early support for Python 3 (regardless of what wsgi standard it will provide) because it may trigger a lot of python users to adopt Web2py as it might be the ONLY Full Stack Framework that will be supporting Python 3 2. Python 3.x is the future of Python (I see this to be very true) Eventually we would all be using Python 3.x in our production systems. 3. Lets progress rather than remaining stagnant with existing versions of Python only. I mean Why Not the latest Python ?? >> Cheers, Rahul D >> On Jul 12, 5:38 pm, pbreit wrote: > I suspect 2.6 is going to be popular for some time since that's what's in > the current Ubuntu LTS (10.04).
[web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
+1 On Jul 13, 9:28 am, Caleb Hattingh wrote: > Agreed, I think web2py on Py3 is pointless. > > An entirely different project, called, let's say, web3py, which runs on Py3 > is a different animal altogether... > > On 13 July 2011 15:50, Anthony wrote: > > > > > > > > > The problem is, it would break backward compatibility. > > > On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 12:54:57 AM UTC-4, Rahul wrote: > > >> Its true that there are existing python versions 2.6, 2.7.x but what I > >> would like is Web2py support for Python 3. > >> Reasons: > >> 1. We should provide early support for Python 3 (regardless of what > >> wsgi standard it will provide) because it may trigger a lot of python > >> users to adopt Web2py as it might be the ONLY Full Stack Framework > >> that will be supporting Python 3 > >> 2. Python 3.x is the future of Python (I see this to be very true) > >> Eventually we would all be using Python 3.x in our production > >> systems. > >> 3. Lets progress rather than remaining stagnant with existing versions > >> of Python only. I mean Why Not the latest Python ?? > > >> Cheers, Rahul D > > >> On Jul 12, 5:38 pm, pbreit wrote: > >> > I suspect 2.6 is going to be popular for some time since that's what's > >> in > >> > the current Ubuntu LTS (10.04).
[web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:28:03 AM UTC-4, pbreit wrote: > > The only big reason I could see doing anything on Python 3 right now is > that it'd be the only framework on 3... > Except for CherryPy: http://www.cherrypy.org/wiki/WhatsNewIn32
Re: [web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
Agreed, I think web2py on Py3 is pointless. An entirely different project, called, let's say, web3py, which runs on Py3 is a different animal altogether... On 13 July 2011 15:50, Anthony wrote: > The problem is, it would break backward compatibility. > > On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 12:54:57 AM UTC-4, Rahul wrote: > >> Its true that there are existing python versions 2.6, 2.7.x but what I >> would like is Web2py support for Python 3. >> Reasons: >> 1. We should provide early support for Python 3 (regardless of what >> wsgi standard it will provide) because it may trigger a lot of python >> users to adopt Web2py as it might be the ONLY Full Stack Framework >> that will be supporting Python 3 >> 2. Python 3.x is the future of Python (I see this to be very true) >> Eventually we would all be using Python 3.x in our production >> systems. >> 3. Lets progress rather than remaining stagnant with existing versions >> of Python only. I mean Why Not the latest Python ?? >> >> Cheers, Rahul D >> >> >> On Jul 12, 5:38 pm, pbreit wrote: >> > I suspect 2.6 is going to be popular for some time since that's what's >> in >> > the current Ubuntu LTS (10.04). > >
[web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
I think Massimo may have indicated that one idea for Python 3 is to start from scratch and he had some ideas (hence, "Web3py"). The only big reason I could see doing anything on Python 3 right now is that it'd be the only framework on 3 since I don't think anyone is really contemplating using 3 anytime soon.
[web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
Small correction here: New features, ideas, and ways of doing things could be created without *worrying about* breaking backwards-compatibility because your Python2.x web2py apps wouldn't work on Python 3 anyways
[web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
Very true, we would need to create another branch of web2py, do the initial conversion to Python 3, then try to maintain it, coding updates and new features twice: once for Python 2.x and once again for Python 3.x, since the two have different coding requirements. Then both would need to be tested extensively to ensure that they both work identically. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making web2py as cutting edge and portable as possible, but this may be one of those cases where the potential problems outweigh the benefits. Besides, Python 3 has been benchmarked to run 10% slower than Python 2.x, so until they can get that fixed, I doubt any high-traffic sites would risk it. Since Python 3 is so different by nature, that might be the time, where Massimo mentioned that a web3py would be created. New features, ideas, and ways of doing things could be created without breaking backwards-compatibility because your Python2.x web2py apps wouldn't work on Python 3 anyways, so it would be the perfect time to try new things. But again, it's a lot of work, and if a web3py were to be created now, it would probably be nothing more than a pet project until Python 3 gets it act together and becomes more popular.
[web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
The problem is, it would break backward compatibility. On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 12:54:57 AM UTC-4, Rahul wrote: > Its true that there are existing python versions 2.6, 2.7.x but what I > would like is Web2py support for Python 3. > Reasons: > 1. We should provide early support for Python 3 (regardless of what > wsgi standard it will provide) because it may trigger a lot of python > users to adopt Web2py as it might be the ONLY Full Stack Framework > that will be supporting Python 3 > 2. Python 3.x is the future of Python (I see this to be very true) > Eventually we would all be using Python 3.x in our production > systems. > 3. Lets progress rather than remaining stagnant with existing versions > of Python only. I mean Why Not the latest Python ?? > > Cheers, Rahul D > > > On Jul 12, 5:38 pm, pbreit wrote: > > I suspect 2.6 is going to be popular for some time since that's what's in > > > the current Ubuntu LTS (10.04).
[web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
Let us know about any problems you find when you try web2py on Py3.x, ok?
[web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
Its true that there are existing python versions 2.6, 2.7.x but what I would like is Web2py support for Python 3. Reasons: 1. We should provide early support for Python 3 (regardless of what wsgi standard it will provide) because it may trigger a lot of python users to adopt Web2py as it might be the ONLY Full Stack Framework that will be supporting Python 3 2. Python 3.x is the future of Python (I see this to be very true) Eventually we would all be using Python 3.x in our production systems. 3. Lets progress rather than remaining stagnant with existing versions of Python only. I mean Why Not the latest Python ?? Cheers, Rahul D On Jul 12, 5:38 pm, pbreit wrote: > I suspect 2.6 is going to be popular for some time since that's what's in > the current Ubuntu LTS (10.04).
[web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
It may, in fact, be necessary. According to http://docs.python.org/py3k/whatsnew/3.0.html: "It is not recommended to try to write source code that runs unchanged under both Python 2.6 and 3.0; you’d have to use a very contorted coding style, e.g. avoiding print statements, metaclasses, and much more. If you are maintaining a library that needs to support both Python 2.6 and Python 3.0, the best approach is to modify step 3 above by editing the 2.6 version of the source code and running the 2to3 translator again, rather than editing the 3.0 version of the source code."
[web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
I'd be interested to see what something like 2to3 would say about web2py's compatibility with Python3: http://docs.python.org/library/2to3.html http://diveintopython3.org/porting-code-to-python-3-with-2to3.html
[web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
The other wild idea, of course, is to keep web2py on Python 2.x (assuming that is going to be around as long as you suggest) and make web3py for Python 3.x, IOW a new framework where different ideas can be tried without affecting backward compatiblityI'm sure you have played with this idea before, no?
[web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
On Monday, 11 July 2011 16:13:39 UTC+2, Massimo Di Pierro wrote: > > Do not worry about the statements above. I am prepared to bet money there > will be a 2.8 and it not there will be a fork from sombody. > :) I have seen a lot of quite strong statements from various members of the core Python team that disagree with your prediction. If it now turns out that there comes a 2.8 after all, there will be a serious loss of credibility for them. Besides, is py3 really a big problem for us? I would guess that any changes required are mostly cosmetic.
Re: [web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
You might be very secured by this presentation : http://www.google.com/events/io/2011/sessions/python-google.html Guido himself expose a planning of Python future... Very instructive presentation actually... A lot of littles insides informations for outsider... Richard On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Massimo Di Pierro < massimo.dipie...@gmail.com> wrote: > When Python 3.x gets better than Python 2.x (faster, better > concurrency, better web support), than we will consider a web3py. Do > not worry about the statements above. I am prepared to bet money there > will be a 2.8 and it not there will be a fork from sombody. > > On Jul 11, 8:52 am, Ross Peoples wrote: > > I know it's on the radar, but I don't know to what extent. I am guessing > > that it won't be an immediate priority until operating systems like Mac > OS > > X, Ubuntu, and RHEL/CentOS start shipping Python3 by default. Python3, > being > > the next-generation of Python as it were, is still new and these > operating > > systems are a bit hesitant to move to it just yet until most major > projects > > along with their own Python scripts and applications work with it. Maybe > > someone "in the know" can offer more details. >
[web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
When Python 3.x gets better than Python 2.x (faster, better concurrency, better web support), than we will consider a web3py. Do not worry about the statements above. I am prepared to bet money there will be a 2.8 and it not there will be a fork from sombody. On Jul 11, 8:52 am, Ross Peoples wrote: > I know it's on the radar, but I don't know to what extent. I am guessing > that it won't be an immediate priority until operating systems like Mac OS > X, Ubuntu, and RHEL/CentOS start shipping Python3 by default. Python3, being > the next-generation of Python as it were, is still new and these operating > systems are a bit hesitant to move to it just yet until most major projects > along with their own Python scripts and applications work with it. Maybe > someone "in the know" can offer more details.
[web2py] Re: Python 3 and the future of web2py
I know it's on the radar, but I don't know to what extent. I am guessing that it won't be an immediate priority until operating systems like Mac OS X, Ubuntu, and RHEL/CentOS start shipping Python3 by default. Python3, being the next-generation of Python as it were, is still new and these operating systems are a bit hesitant to move to it just yet until most major projects along with their own Python scripts and applications work with it. Maybe someone "in the know" can offer more details.
