On 1 June 2015 at 00:44, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 5/31/2015 6:59 AM, Alexander Walters wrote:
A better course of action would be to deprecate the non-portable
version. Other than setting the PATH envvar, why do we need to continue
even touching the system on install? It is
into getpath.c easily.
Cheers,
Steve
Top-posted from my Windows Phone
From: Alexander Waltersmailto:tritium-l...@sdamon.com
Sent: 5/31/2015 6:39
To: python-dev@python.orgmailto:python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2
A better
+1. The new embeddable Python distribution for Windows is a great step
forward for this. It's not single-file, but it's easy to produce a
single-directory self-contained application with it. I don't know if
there's anything equivalent for Linux/OSX - maybe it's something we
should look at for
On 31 May 2015 at 10:14, Xavier Combelle xavier.combe...@gmail.com wrote:
+1. The new embeddable Python distribution for Windows is a great step
forward for this. It's not single-file, but it's easy to produce a
single-directory self-contained application with it. I don't know if
there's
On 31 May 2015 at 11:41, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 May 2015 at 10:14, Xavier Combelle xavier.combe...@gmail.com wrote:
+1. The new embeddable Python distribution for Windows is a great step
forward for this. It's not single-file, but it's easy to produce a
single-directory
A better course of action would be to deprecate the non-portable
version. Other than setting the PATH envvar, why do we need to continue
even touching the system on install? It is highly annoying for those of
us that maintain several installs of python on a single windows system,
and it
On 5/31/2015 6:59 AM, Alexander Walters wrote:
A better course of action would be to deprecate the non-portable
version. Other than setting the PATH envvar, why do we need to continue
even touching the system on install? It is highly annoying for those of
us that maintain several installs of
On 29 May 2015 11:01 am, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
Why not continue to enhance Python 3 instead of wasting our time with
Python 2? We have limited resources in term of developers to maintain
Python.
(I'm not talking about fixing *bugs* in Python 2 which is fine with me.)
Op 28 mei 2015 om 21:37 heeft Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov het volgende
geschreven:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com
wrote:
The system
Python should be left alone as it is.
absolutely!
By the way, py2app will build an application bundle
On 29 May 2015 00:52, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
+1. The new embeddable Python distribution for Windows is a great step
forward for this. It's not single-file, but it's easy to produce a
single-directory self-contained application with it. I don't know if
there's anything
On 28/05/15 21:37, Chris Barker wrote:
I think it's great for it to be used by end users as a system library /
utility. i.e. like you would a the system libc -- so if you can write a
little python script that only uses the stdlib -- you can simply deliver
that script.
No it is not, because
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com
wrote:
Many Unix tools need Python, so Mac OS X (like Linux distros and FreeBSD)
will always need a system Python. Yes, it would be great if could be called
spython or something else than python. But the main problem is
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:08 AM Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Wow. Such thread. :-)
This patch could save companies like Dropbox a lot of money. We run a ton
of Python code in large datacenters, and while we are slow in moving to
Python 3, we're good at updating to the latest 2.7.
On 5/28/2015 10:55 AM, Steve Dower wrote:
And it would look like a 20MB+ file just for a simple 1KB Python
script...
For Windows at least, I'd prefer to have some app-style installer
generation (e.g. http://pynsist.readthedocs.org/en/latest/) which,
combined with the embeddable Python distro
Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
Honestly, I’m on an OS that *does* ship Python (OS X) and part of me hopes
that they stop shipping it. It’s very rare that someone ships Python as
part of their OS without modifying it in some way, and those modifications
almost always cause pain to some
: Matthias Klose [mailto:d...@ubuntu.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 5:01 AM
To: Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi; 'python-dev@python.org'
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2
On 05/28/2015 02:17 AM, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi wrote:
Hi All,
This is Vamsi from Server Scripting
On May 28, 2015 at 2:11:02 PM, Terry Reedy (tjre...@udel.edu) wrote:
On 5/28/2015 10:55 AM, Steve Dower wrote:
And it would look like a 20MB+ file just for a simple 1KB Python
script...
For Windows at least, I'd prefer to have some app-style installer
generation (e.g.
Hello,
On Fri, 29 May 2015 08:38:44 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
[]
In that vein, it might be interesting to see what could be done with
MicroPython in terms of providing a lightweight portable Python
runtime without CPython's extensive integration with the underlying
OS.
On 05/28/2015 05:58 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Why not continue to enhance Python 3 instead of wasting our time with
Python 2? We have limited resources in term of developers to maintain
Python.
Uh, guys, you might as well call off the debate. Benjamin already
checked it in.
2015-05-28 18:07 GMT+02:00 Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org:
This patch could save companies like Dropbox a lot of money. We run a ton of
Python code in large datacenters, and while we are slow in moving to Python
3, we're good at updating to the latest 2.7.
I'm not sure that backporting
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com
wrote:
2015-05-28 18:07 GMT+02:00 Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org:
This patch could save companies like Dropbox a lot of money. We run a
ton of
Python code in large datacenters, and while we are slow in moving to
YESSS!!!
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
On 05/28/2015 05:58 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Why not continue to enhance Python 3 instead of wasting our time with
Python 2? We have limited resources in term of developers to maintain
Python.
Uh, guys,
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Paul Sokolovsky pmis...@gmail.com wrote:
That said, making a demo of self-contained webapp server in 350-400K is
definitely on my TODO list (package support for frozen modules is the
only blocker for that).
It may be worth taking this over to
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 6:10 PM Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
On 05/28/2015 05:58 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Why not continue to enhance Python 3 instead of wasting our time with
Python 2? We have limited resources in term of developers to maintain
Python.
Uh, guys, you might as
On 28.05.2015 02:17, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi wrote:
Hi All,
This is Vamsi from Server Scripting Languages Optimization team at Intel
Corporation.
Would like to submit a request to enable the computed goto based dispatch in
Python 2.x (which happens to be enabled by default in Python 3
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:17 AM, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi
srinivas.vamsi.par...@intel.com wrote:
Attached is the computed goto patch (along with instructions to run) for
Python 2.7.10 (based on the patch submitted by Jeffrey Yasskin at
http://bugs.python.org/issue4753). We built and tested
On 28 May 2015 at 19:47, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
That's going to be a negotiation process - companies don't typically
contribute paid development time to open source projects out of the
kindness of their hearts, they do it either because they're using the
project themselves,
won't this need python compiled with gcc 5.1 to have any effect? Which
compiler version was used for the benchmark?
the issue that negated most computed goto improvements
(https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39284) was only closed
very recently (r212172, 9f4ec746affbde1)
On 28 May 2015 at 18:54, Berker Peksağ berker.pek...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:17 AM, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi
srinivas.vamsi.par...@intel.com wrote:
Attached is the computed goto patch (along with instructions to run) for
Python 2.7.10 (based on the patch submitted by Jeffrey
I'm -1 on the idea because:
* Performance improvements are not bug fixes
* The patch doesn't make the migration process from Python 2 to Python 3
easier
And this is why people have been porting Python applications to Go.
Maybe addressing Python performance and making Python (2 or 3) a
On 05/28/2015 02:17 AM, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi wrote:
Hi All,
This is Vamsi from Server Scripting Languages Optimization team at Intel
Corporation.
Would like to submit a request to enable the computed goto based dispatch in
Python 2.x (which happens to be enabled by default in Python 3
-dev@python.org'
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2
On 05/28/2015 02:17 AM, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi wrote:
Hi All,
This is Vamsi from Server Scripting Languages Optimization team at Intel
Corporation.
Would like to submit a request to enable the computed goto based
On 28 May 2015 at 22:00, Matthias Klose d...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 05/28/2015 02:17 AM, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi wrote:
Hi All,
This is Vamsi from Server Scripting Languages Optimization team at Intel
Corporation.
Would like to submit a request to enable the computed goto based dispatch in
On May 28, 2015 at 10:10:03 AM, Nick Coghlan (ncogh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 21:55, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
I'm -1 on the idea because:
* Performance improvements are not bug fixes
* The patch doesn't make the migration process from Python 2 to Python 3
easier
And
On 28 May 2015 at 21:55, Maciej Fijalkowski fij...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm -1 on the idea because:
* Performance improvements are not bug fixes
* The patch doesn't make the migration process from Python 2 to Python 3
easier
And this is why people have been porting Python applications to Go.
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:47 AM Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 28, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Berker Peksağ berker.pek...@gmail.com
wrote:
* Performance improvements are not bug fixes
Practicality beats purity here.
Recognize that a huge number of Python users will
On 28 May 2015 at 23:37, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 22:00, Matthias Klose d...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 05/28/2015 02:17 AM, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi wrote:
Hi All,
This is Vamsi from Server Scripting Languages Optimization team at Intel
Corporation.
Would like to
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:47 AM Skip Montanaro skip.montan...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
But you could argue that Special cases aren't special enough to break
the
rules and that's what we are proposing here by claiming Python 2.7
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
But you could argue that Special cases aren't special enough to break the
rules and that's what we are proposing here by claiming Python 2.7 is a
special case and thus we should accept a patch that is not a one-liner
change
On 28 May 2015 at 15:37, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
I think docker is a pretty crummy answer to Go’s static binaries. What I would
love is for Python to get:
* The ability to import .so modules via zipzimport (ideally without a
temporary
directory, but that might require newer
On 28/05/2015 15:47, Skip Montanaro wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
But you could argue that Special cases aren't special enough to break the
rules and that's what we are proposing here by claiming Python 2.7 is a
special case and thus we should
On May 28, 2015 at 10:55:08 AM, Steve Dower (steve.do...@microsoft.com) wrote:
Donald Stufft wrote:
I think docker is a pretty crummy answer to Go’s static binaries. What I
would
love is for Python to get:
* The ability to import .so modules via zipzimport (ideally without a
Donald Stufft wrote:
I think docker is a pretty crummy answer to Go’s static binaries. What I would
love is for Python to get:
* The ability to import .so modules via zipzimport (ideally without a
temporary
directory, but that might require newer APIs from libc and such).
* The ability to
On May 28, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Berker Peksağ berker.pek...@gmail.com wrote:
* Performance improvements are not bug fixes
Practicality beats purity here.
Recognize that a huge number of Python users will remain in the Python2.7 world
for some time. We have a responsibility to the bulk of
Wow. Such thread. :-)
This patch could save companies like Dropbox a lot of money. We run a ton
of Python code in large datacenters, and while we are slow in moving to
Python 3, we're good at updating to the latest 2.7.
The patch is forward and backward compatible.I'm strongly in favor.
--
On May 27, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 10:17, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi
srinivas.vamsi.par...@intel.com wrote:
Hi All,
This is Vamsi from Server Scripting Languages Optimization team at Intel
Corporation.
Would like to submit a
On 5/27/2015 9:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
+1 from me, for basically the same reasons Guido gives: Python 2.7 is
going to be with us for a long time, and this particular change
shouldn't have any externally visible impacts at either an ABI or API level.
Immediately after a release, giving the
Why now? We intentionally decided not to do this for 2.7 in the past
because it was too late for the release cutoff.
Has anyone benchmarked compiling python in profile-opt mode vs having the
computed goto patch? I'd *expect* the benefits to be the roughly the same.
Has this been compared to
On 28 May 2015 at 10:17, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi
srinivas.vamsi.par...@intel.com wrote:
Hi All,
This is Vamsi from Server Scripting Languages Optimization team at Intel
Corporation.
Would like to submit a request to enable the computed goto based dispatch
in Python 2.x (which happens
49 matches
Mail list logo
