Re: [Python-Dev] Keeping competitive with Go (was Re: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

On 29 May 2015 9:48 am, "Donald Stufft" wrote: > > > > On May 28, 2015 at 7:40:26 PM, Nick Coghlan (ncogh...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > One thing I've seen more than once is that new development happens > > in Python > > > until the problem is understood, then the code is ported to Go. > > Pyth

Re: [Python-Dev] Single-file Python executables (was: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:38:49PM +0100, Paul Moore wrote: > I suspect "single file executables" just aren't viewed as a desirable > solution on Unix. More of an anti-pattern than a pattern. A single file executable means that when you have a security update, instead of patching one library,

Re: [Python-Dev] Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2

On 29 May 2015 11:01 am, "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. > > (I'm not talking about fixing *bugs* in Python 2 which is fine with me.) I'm actually OK

Re: [Python-Dev] time-based releases (was Re: Preserving the definition order of class namespaces.)

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > On 29 May 2015 9:17 am, "Antoine Pitrou" wrote: >> >> On Thu, 28 May 2015 08:48:11 +1000 >> Nick Coghlan wrote: > >> > After all, the real difference between the alphas and the final releases >> > isn't about anything *we* do, it's about

Re: [Python-Dev] Single-file Python executables (was: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 01:20:06PM -0400, Donald Stufft wrote: > I think it’s an issue for all platforms, even when there is a system Python > that can be used. > > Here’s why: > > * Even on Linux systems Python isn’t always a guaranteed thing to be > installed, >   for instance Debian works ju

Re: [Python-Dev] Single-file Python executables (was: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

On 29 May 2015 at 09:36, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > The point is, in the Linux circles I move in, this idea of single file > installation would be about as popular as a police raid at a rave club. > Maybe you move in different circles (perhaps more enterprisey?), but I > can already imagine the sort

Re: [Python-Dev] time-based releases (was Re: Preserving the definition order of class namespaces.)

Nathaniel Smith writes: > DVCS back in the day :-). Unfortunately hg makes this a little > trickier than it could be, because in hg the same commit can't be in > two different branches; but this just means you have to insert some > no-op merges, oh well. Don't use named branches ("friends don

Re: [Python-Dev] Single-file Python executables (was: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

On 28 May 2015 at 22:09, Glenn Linderman wrote: > This would be something I could use and benefit from immediately upon it > being available, so I laud your idea, and hope you have a successful > implementation, and look forward to using it. It would largely replace the > need for the py.exe laun

Re: [Python-Dev] Single-file Python executables (was: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

Paul Moore writes: > In my environments, we frequently have ancient versions of RHEL > installed, sometimes with no Python at all (IIRC) or nothing better > than 2.4. That's pretty advanced as older Red Hat systems go. You're lucky it isn't 1.5.2! Getting serious, Red Hat systems have includ

Re: [Python-Dev] Single-file Python executables (was: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 07:08:43AM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 29 May 2015 05:25, "Chris Barker" wrote: > > > > OK, I'm really confused here: > > > > 1) what the heck is so special about go all of a sudden? People have been > > writing and deploying single file executables built with C and ++,

Re: [Python-Dev] Single-file Python executables (was: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

Hello, On Fri, 29 May 2015 20:53:53 +1000 Steven D'Aprano wrote: [ insightful statistics skipped ] > I think there are some exciting and interesting languages coming up: > Swift, Julia, Go, Rust and others. Only those? Every one in a dozen university student comes up with an exciting, intere

Re: [Python-Dev] time-based releases (was Re: Preserving the definition order of class namespaces.)

On 29 May 2015 20:24, "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote: > > Nathaniel Smith writes: > > > DVCS back in the day :-). Unfortunately hg makes this a little > > trickier than it could be, because in hg the same commit can't be in > > two different branches; but this just means you have to insert some >

Re: [Python-Dev] time-based releases (was Re: Preserving the definition order of class namespaces.)

On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:39:55 +1000 Nick Coghlan wrote: > The key is whether or not we can readily notify people when the "most > recent known good" hash *changes*, and less about the mechanics of how we > then record the history of which commits *were* stable, or the identity of > the most recent

Re: [Python-Dev] Single-file Python executables (was: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

On May 29, 2015 at 4:37:37 AM, Steven D'Aprano (st...@pearwood.info) wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 01:20:06PM -0400, Donald Stufft wrote: > > > I think it’s an issue for all platforms, even when there is a system Python > > that can be used. > > > > Here’s why: > > > > * Even on Linux system

Re: [Python-Dev] Keeping competitive with Go (was Re: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

On May 29, 2015 at 2:58:28 AM, Nick Coghlan (ncogh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On 29 May 2015 9:48 am, "Donald Stufft" wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 28, 2015 at 7:40:26 PM, Nick Coghlan (ncogh...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > > > One thing I've seen more than once is that new development happens > > >

Re: [Python-Dev] Single-file Python executables (was: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

On Fri, 29 May 2015 18:36:02 +1000 Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > The point is, in the Linux circles I move in, this idea of single file > installation would be about as popular as a police raid at a rave club. This is frankly not true. There are many programs (e.g. games) which are not available

[Python-Dev] Not getting the exact file to start

Hello sir. I have just installed python 3.4.2. I'm not getting the file 'IDLE (python GUI)' to start programming. Or which file I should open to write code ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-d

Re: [Python-Dev] Not getting the exact file to start

This mailing list is for the development *of* Python, not *with* it. Your best option for getting help like this is python-l...@python.org. On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:36 AM Saket Sourav wrote: > Hello sir. > I have just installed python 3.4.2. > I'm not getting the file 'IDLE (python GUI)' > to s

Re: [Python-Dev] Obtaining stack-frames from co-routine objects

Hi Ben, Is there any real-world scenario where you would need this? It looks like this can help with debugging, somehow, but the easiest solution is to put a "if debug: log(...)" before "yield" in your "switch()" function. You'll have a perfect traceback there. Thanks, Yury On 2015-05-29 12:4

Re: [Python-Dev] Keeping competitive with Go (was Re: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

Speaking about distribution I believe Pip is the simplest way of distributing. I have used some freezing tools in the past such cxfreeze but with more complex projects they start being hard to manage. Now instead of saying people to goto an url, download and put in the path I just say: pip install

Re: [Python-Dev] Single-file Python executables (including case of self-sufficient package manager)

Hello, On Fri, 29 May 2015 08:35:44 -0400 Donald Stufft wrote: [] > Another example is one that I personally worked on recently, where > the company I worked for wanted to distribute a CLI to our customers > which would "just work" that they could use to interact with the [] > particular piece

Re: [Python-Dev] Single-file Python executables (was: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

On 5/28/2015 4:29 PM, Paul Moore wrote: On 28 May 2015 at 20:47, Brett Cannon wrote: I think it's to have a single tool to do it for any platform, not to have the technical nuts and bolts be the same necessarily. I think it's also to figure out if there is anything the interpreter and/or stdlib

[Python-Dev] Summary of Python tracker Issues

ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2015-05-22 - 2015-05-29) Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/ To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue. Do NOT respond to this message. Issues counts and deltas: open4844 (+11) closed 31241 (+47) total 36085 (+58) Open issues wit

Re: [Python-Dev] Single-file Python executables (was: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

On 5/29/2015 3:33 AM, Paul Moore wrote: On 28 May 2015 at 22:09, Glenn Linderman wrote: This would be something I could use and benefit from immediately upon it being available, so I laud your idea, and hope you have a successful implementation, and look forward to using it. It would largely r

Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7 is here until 2020, please don't call it a waste.

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:24 AM Nick Coghlan wrote: > > On 29 May 2015 11:01 am, "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. > > > > (I'm not talking

Re: [Python-Dev] Single-file Python executables (was: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

On 29 May 2015 at 21:49, Glenn Linderman wrote: > > That looks interesting, I wonder what compilation environment it would need? > I don't think I've even installed a C compiler on my last couple boxes, and > the only version of a C compiler I have is, umm... M$VC++6.0, since I've > moved to using

Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7 is here until 2020, please don't call it a waste.

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:24 AM Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> >> On 29 May 2015 11:01 am, "Victor Stinner" >> wrote: >> > >> > Why not continue to enhance Python 3 instead of wasting our time with >> > Python 2? We have limited resources

Re: [Python-Dev] Single-file Python executables (was: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

I did that once; it wasn't worth it. It was no smaller than what PyInstaller would output and required manually adding in the required modules that weren't in the stdlib, along with any extra DLLs (e.g. the Qt DLLs). On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > On 29 May 2015 at 21:49,

Re: [Python-Dev] Single-file Python executables (was: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

On 5/29/2015 2:45 PM, Paul Moore wrote: On 29 May 2015 at 21:49, Glenn Linderman wrote: That looks interesting, I wonder what compilation environment it would need? I don't think I've even installed a C compiler on my last couple boxes, and the only version of a C compiler I have is, umm... M$V

Re: [Python-Dev] Single-file Python executables (was: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

On 29 May 2015 at 23:15, Glenn Linderman wrote: > I don't presently see any C:\Python34\DLLs or C:\Python34 on my path, but I > didn't ask the installer to put it there either. So I'm guessing your option > 1 assumes asking the Python installer to put it there? Not "automatically" > but "on reques

Re: [Python-Dev] Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2

Op 28 mei 2015 om 21:37 heeft Chris Barker het volgende geschreven: > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Sturla Molden > wrote: > >> The system >> Python should be left alone as it is. > > absolutely! > > By the way, py2app will build an application bundle that depends on the > system pyt

Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7 is here until 2020, please don't call it a waste.

On 30 May 2015 07:14, "Gregory P. Smith" wrote: > > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:24 AM Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> >> On 29 May 2015 11:01 am, "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

Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7 is here until 2020, please don't call it a waste.

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:24 AM Nick Coghlan > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 29 May 2015 11:01 am, "Victor Stinner" > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > Why not continue to enhance Python 3

Re: [Python-Dev] Single-file Python executables (was: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

Paul Moore wrote: > One mildly annoying thing is that python3.dll is only installed in install dir>\DLLs, which > typically isn't on PATH. So actually using the limited API from your own > application fails by default. > Fixing that's mostly a user admin issue, though (and you can just link to th

Re: [Python-Dev] Keeping competitive with Go (was Re: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

On 29 May 2015 22:50, "Donald Stufft" wrote: > > This might be something that people could have done before with C/C++ but with > a nicer language behind it... but that's kind of the point? You don't need to > be stuck with a terrible language to get a nice single file executable anymore, > you ca

Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7 is here until 2020, please don't call it a waste.

On May 29, 2015, at 04:04 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >There are a fair number of people on this thread whose employer pays them to >work on Python. My guess is that as Python 2.7 gets longer in the tooth, and it becomes harder to motivate volunteers to shepherd contributed patches into Python 2,

Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7 is here until 2020, please don't call it a waste.

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Ian Cordasco > wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote: >> > >> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:24 AM Nick Coghlan >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On 29 May 2015 11:01 am, "Victor

Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7 is here until 2020, please don't call it a waste.

On 30 May 2015 09:21, "Barry Warsaw" wrote: > > On May 29, 2015, at 04:04 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > >There are a fair number of people on this thread whose employer pays them to > >work on Python. > > My guess is that as Python 2.7 gets longer in the tooth, and it becomes harder > to motivat

Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7 is here until 2020, please don't call it a waste.

On 2015-05-29 23:14, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:24 AM Nick Coghlan > wrote: > > > On 29 May 2015 11:01 am, "Victor Stinner" > wrote: > > > > Why not continue to enhance Python 3 instead of w

Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7 is here until 2020, please don't call it a waste.

On Sat, 30 May 2015 01:49:10 +0200 Christian Heimes wrote: > For performance patches we have to consider our responsibility for the > environment. Every improvement means more speed and less power > consumption. Python runs of hundreds of thousands of machines in the > cloud. Python 2.7 will be us

Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7 is here until 2020, please don't call it a waste.

On 30 May 2015 09:57, "Antoine Pitrou" wrote: > > On Sat, 30 May 2015 01:49:10 +0200 > Christian Heimes wrote: > > For performance patches we have to consider our responsibility for the > > environment. Every improvement means more speed and less power > > consumption. Python runs of hundreds of

Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7 is here until 2020, please don't call it a waste.

Python is a giant cache-miss generator. A little performance boost on the opt-code dispatch isn't going to change that much. If we really do care about improving python to do less environmental damage, then that is a discussion we should be having on it's own merits. It was really out of pla

Re: [Python-Dev] Single-file Python executables (was: Computed Goto dispatch for Python 2)

On 5/29/2015 3:28 PM, Paul Moore wrote: On 29 May 2015 at 23:15, Glenn Linderman wrote: I don't presently see any C:\Python34\DLLs or C:\Python34 on my path, but I didn't ask the installer to put it there either. So I'm guessing your option 1 assumes asking the Python installer to put it there?

Re: [Python-Dev] [Distutils] Single-file Python executables (including case of self-sufficient package manager)

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > > An example of a product that does this is Chef, they install their > > own Ruby and everything but libc into /opt/chef to completely isolate > > themselves from the host system. this sounds a bit like what conda does -- install minico