Re: [Python-Dev] Spreading the Python 3 religion (was Re: PEP 414 - Unicode Literals for Python 3)
FWIW, I agree that much of the rhetoric in the current version of PEP 414 is excessive. Armin has given me permission to create an updated version of PEP 414 and toning down the hyperbole (or removing it entirely in cases where it's irrelevant to the final decision) is one of the things that I will be changing. I also plan to add a link to Lennart's guide to the various porting strategies that are currently available, more clearly articulate the cases where the new approach can most help (i.e. when there are project specific reasons to avoid the unicode_literals import), as well as name drop Pyramid (Chris McDonough), Flask (Armin), Django (Jacob Kaplan-Moss) and requests (Kenneth Reitz) as cases where key developers of web-related third party frameworks or libraries have indicated that PEP 414 will help greatly with bringing the sections of the Python ecosystem they're involved with into the Python 3 fold over the next few years. My aim is for the end result to better reflect the reasons why Guido *accepted* the PEP, moreso than Armin's own reasons for *wanting* it. Thank you Nick and Armin. I think toning down the rhetoric is a very amicable solution. Let me know if I need to add anything to http://getpython3.com/ (have linked porting guides there too if you want) jesse ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Spreading the Python 3 religion (was Re: PEP 414 - Unicode Literals for Python 3)
On Feb 28, 2012, at 08:41 AM, R. David Murray wrote: Hmm. It seems to me that this argument implies that PEP 414 is just as likely to *slow down* adoption of Python3 as it is to speed it up, since if this issue is as big a barrier as indicated, many potential porters may choose to wait until OS vendors are supporting 3.3 widely before starting their ports. We are clearly expecting that the reality is that the impact will be at worse neutral, and hopefully positive. If PEP 414 helps some projects migrate to Python 3, great. But I really hope we as a community don't perpetuate the myth that you cannot port to Python 3 without this, and I hope that we spend as much effort on educating other Python developers on how to port to Python 3 *right now* supporting Python 2.6, 2.7, and 3.2. That's the message we should be spreading and we should be helping developers understand exactly how to do this effectively, among the many great options that exist today. Only in the most extreme cases or the most inertially challenged projects should we say wait for Python 3.3. Cheers, -Barry ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Spreading the Python 3 religion (was Re: PEP 414 - Unicode Literals for Python 3)
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 09:53, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote: On Feb 28, 2012, at 08:41 AM, R. David Murray wrote: Hmm. It seems to me that this argument implies that PEP 414 is just as likely to *slow down* adoption of Python3 as it is to speed it up, since if this issue is as big a barrier as indicated, many potential porters may choose to wait until OS vendors are supporting 3.3 widely before starting their ports. We are clearly expecting that the reality is that the impact will be at worse neutral, and hopefully positive. If PEP 414 helps some projects migrate to Python 3, great. But I really hope we as a community don't perpetuate the myth that you cannot port to Python 3 without this, and I hope that we spend as much effort on educating other Python developers on how to port to Python 3 *right now* supporting Python 2.6, 2.7, and 3.2. That's the message we should be spreading and we should be helping developers understand exactly how to do this effectively, among the many great options that exist today. Only in the most extreme cases or the most inertially challenged projects should we say wait for Python 3.3. Well, when the code is committed I will update the porting HOWTO and push the __future__ imports first since they cover more versions of Python (i.e. Python 3.2). But I will mention the options that skip the __future__ imports for those that choose not to use them (or have already done the work of using the u prefix in their code). Plus that doc probably will need an update of caveats that seem to bit everyone (e.g. the str(bytes) thing which I didn't know about) when trying to do source-compatible versions. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Spreading the Python 3 religion (was Re: PEP 414 - Unicode Literals for Python 3)
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: Well, when the code is committed I will update the porting HOWTO and push the __future__ imports first since they cover more versions of Python (i.e. Python 3.2). But I will mention the options that skip the __future__ imports for those that choose not to use them (or have already done the work of using the u prefix in their code). Plus that doc probably will need an update of caveats that seem to bit everyone (e.g. the str(bytes) thing which I didn't know about) when trying to do source-compatible versions. See, I think the emphasis should be on using the future imports and unadorning your unicode literals. Forget about this PEP except as a footnote. This strategy works today for most packages. You might think that this is ugly, but really, I think that doesn't matter (or maybe better: get over it! :). Definitely don't let that stop you from porting *now*. In the small minority of cases where this strategy cannot work for you (and I admit to not really understanding what those cases are), then the footnote about the reintroduction of the u-prefix should be enough. And yes, the str(bytes) thing is a pain, but it too can be worked around, and is such a minor wart that it should not delay your porting efforts. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Spreading the Python 3 religion (was Re: PEP 414 - Unicode Literals for Python 3)
If PEP 414 helps some projects migrate to Python 3, great. But I really hope we as a community don't perpetuate the myth that you cannot port to Python 3 without this, and I hope that we spend as much effort on educating other Python developers on how to port to Python 3 *right now* supporting Python 2.6, 2.7, and 3.2. One thing that the PEP will certainly achieve is to spread the myth that you cannot port to Python 3 if you also want to support Python 2.5. That's because people will accept the single source approach as the one right way, and will accept that this only works well with Python 2.6. Regards, Martin ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Spreading the Python 3 religion (was Re: PEP 414 - Unicode Literals for Python 3)
martin at v.loewis.de writes: One thing that the PEP will certainly achieve is to spread the myth that you cannot port to Python 3 if you also want to support Python 2.5. That's because people will accept the single source approach as the one right way, and will accept that this only works well with Python 2.6. Let's hope not. We can mitigate that by spelling out in the docs that there's no one right way, how to choose which approach is best for a given project, and so on. Regards, Vinay Sajip ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Spreading the Python 3 religion (was Re: PEP 414 - Unicode Literals for Python 3)
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:07, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: martin at v.loewis.de writes: One thing that the PEP will certainly achieve is to spread the myth that you cannot port to Python 3 if you also want to support Python 2.5. That's because people will accept the single source approach as the one right way, and will accept that this only works well with Python 2.6. Let's hope not. We can mitigate that by spelling out in the docs that there's no one right way, how to choose which approach is best for a given project, and so on. Changes to http://docs.python.org/howto/pyporting.html are welcome. I tried to make sure it exposed all possibilities with tips on how to support as far back as Python 2.5. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Spreading the Python 3 religion (was Re: PEP 414 - Unicode Literals for Python 3)
Brett Cannon brett at python.org writes: Changes to http://docs.python.org/howto/pyporting.html are welcome. I tried to make sure it exposed all possibilities with tips on how to support as far back as Python 2.5. Right, will take a look. FYI a Google search for python 3 porting guide shows the Wiki PortingToPy3K page, then Brian Curtin's Python 3 Porting Guide, then Lennart Regebro's porting book website, and then the howto referred to above. Possibly the Wiki page and Brian's guide need to link to the howto, as I presume that's the canonical go-to guide - they don't seem to do so currently. Regards, Vinay Sajip ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Spreading the Python 3 religion (was Re: PEP 414 - Unicode Literals for Python 3)
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:51, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Brett Cannon brett at python.org writes: Changes to http://docs.python.org/howto/pyporting.html are welcome. I tried to make sure it exposed all possibilities with tips on how to support as far back as Python 2.5. Right, will take a look. FYI a Google search for python 3 porting guide shows the Wiki PortingToPy3K page, then Brian Curtin's Python 3 Porting Guide, then Lennart Regebro's porting book website, and then the howto referred to above. Possibly the Wiki page and Brian's guide need to link to the howto, as I presume that's the canonical go-to guide - they don't seem to do so currently. Funny that you mention this: just a few minutes ago someone mentioned on twitter that they found and liked the guide I wrote, then I mentioned the howto/porting page since Brett's last message reminded me of it, and I mentioned that I should update and link to howto/porting. In the words of Guido, I will make it so. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Spreading the Python 3 religion (was Re: PEP 414 - Unicode Literals for Python 3)
mar...@v.loewis.de writes: One thing that the PEP will certainly achieve is to spread the myth that you cannot port to Python 3 if you also want to support Python 2.5. That's because people will accept the single source approach as the one right way, and will accept that this only works well with Python 2.6. Please, Martin, I dislike this idea as much as you do. (There was no -1 from me, though, because I don't work in the context of the claimed use cases at all, but lots of people obviously find them persuasive.) But in respect of myth-spreading, the problem with the PEP is the polemic tone. (Yeah, I've seen Armin's claim that it's not polemic. I disagree.) The unqualified claims that 2to3 is insufficient and the PEP will enable side-by-side support of Python 2 and Python 3 by libraries are too extreme, and really unnecessary in light of Guido's logic for acceptance. As far as I can see, like 2to3, like u()/b(), this PEP introduces a device that will be the most *convenient* approach for *some* use cases. If it were presented that way, with recommendation for its use restricted to the particular intended use case, I don't think it would have a huge effect on people's perception of the difficulty of porting in general, including multiversion support including 2.5. If others want to use it, even though you and I think that's a bad idea, well, we can blog, and consenting adults covers those users. On the other hand, implementation of the PEP itself should have a positive effect on the community's perception of python-dev's responsiveness to its pain. Ie, a lot of us feel strongly that this is the wrong thing to do in principle -- but we're gonna do it anyway, because part of the community wants it. So, let's work on integrating this PEP into the more general framework of recommendations for porting Python 2 code to Python 3 and/or developing libraries targeting both. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Spreading the Python 3 religion (was Re: PEP 414 - Unicode Literals for Python 3)
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote: mar...@v.loewis.de writes: One thing that the PEP will certainly achieve is to spread the myth that you cannot port to Python 3 if you also want to support Python 2.5. That's because people will accept the single source approach as the one right way, and will accept that this only works well with Python 2.6. Please, Martin, I dislike this idea as much as you do. (There was no -1 from me, though, because I don't work in the context of the claimed use cases at all, but lots of people obviously find them persuasive.) But in respect of myth-spreading, the problem with the PEP is the polemic tone. (Yeah, I've seen Armin's claim that it's not polemic. I disagree.) The unqualified claims that 2to3 is insufficient and the PEP will enable side-by-side support of Python 2 and Python 3 by libraries are too extreme, and really unnecessary in light of Guido's logic for acceptance. FWIW, I agree that much of the rhetoric in the current version of PEP 414 is excessive. Armin has given me permission to create an updated version of PEP 414 and toning down the hyperbole (or removing it entirely in cases where it's irrelevant to the final decision) is one of the things that I will be changing. I also plan to add a link to Lennart's guide to the various porting strategies that are currently available, more clearly articulate the cases where the new approach can most help (i.e. when there are project specific reasons to avoid the unicode_literals import), as well as name drop Pyramid (Chris McDonough), Flask (Armin), Django (Jacob Kaplan-Moss) and requests (Kenneth Reitz) as cases where key developers of web-related third party frameworks or libraries have indicated that PEP 414 will help greatly with bringing the sections of the Python ecosystem they're involved with into the Python 3 fold over the next few years. My aim is for the end result to better reflect the reasons why Guido *accepted* the PEP, moreso than Armin's own reasons for *wanting* it. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
