On 1/15/2016 10:09 AM, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:02 PM, William Ray Wing wrote:
What Micro$oft was actually sued for was worse. They would approach a small
company: “We like your product/technology, we think we are interested in buying
you out, but we want to see you
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 01/16/2016 11:00 AM, William Ray Wing wrote:
>> It was known at the time. It was certainly known by the companies
>> that were ripped off, but they were typically small to really small
>> and couldn’t get traction for their stories in a p
On 01/16/2016 11:00 AM, William Ray Wing wrote:
> It was known at the time. It was certainly known by the companies
> that were ripped off, but they were typically small to really small
> and couldn’t get traction for their stories in a press that was in
> thrall to Microsoft. It was pretty much o
> On Jan 16, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Bernardo Sulzbach
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Alister wrote:
>> it was exactly the scenario described
>>
>> A company had developed a means of impo=roving the Fat file system (IIRC by
>> using a pseudo file system on top to eliminate the waste
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Bernardo Sulzbach
wrote:
> Did people know this back then or it just surfaced years later? I
> suppose that at the beginning MS was more "vulnerable" than it is
> today.
This was either pre- or early days of the Web which provided to some
degree a shroud of secrec
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Alister wrote:
> it was exactly the scenario described
>
> A company had developed a means of impo=roving the Fat file system (IIRC by
> using a pseudo file system on top to eliminate the wasted space caused by
> incomplete blocks & the end of files)
>
> Microsoft
On 15/01/16 18:55, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Alister wrote:
Doublespace disk compression springs to mind
Does not ring a bell, I was not even born for MS-DOS 6.0.
it was exactly the scenario described
A company had developed a means of impo=roving the Fat
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 2:49:49 PM UTC-6, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> > On 1/14/2016 3:55 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> And if the owners refuse to sell, no problem, you offer
> >> their customers the same services at bargain basement
> >> discounts
>
> But... that would require you to devel
> On Jan 15, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Bernardo Sulzbach
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:02 PM, William Ray Wing wrote:
>>
>> What Micro$oft was actually sued for was worse. They would approach a small
>> company: “We like your product/technology, we think we are interested in
>> buying y
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 10:23:43 AM UTC-6, Emile van Sebille wrote:
> Hmm, sounds like they're stealing plays from Micro$oft.
"Stealing plays", hardly, they've stolen the *WHOLE* playbook!
Corporations are like drug dealers: First they get you
hooked on the free stuff, then they empty your
Chris Angelico wrote:
and 3.X would wreak havoc with people's heads.
The danger there is that 3.X would sound so cool (everything
is cooler with an X in it) that nobody would want to move
past it. So after 3.X we would get 3.X.1, ... and then
3.X.X.1, ...
At some point people would start abbre
On 15/01/2016 18:53, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
In the end, wouldn't contemporary economies benefit from more
"legislative fairness" when it comes to technology-focused businesses?
Maybe, but there is as much chance of that happening as Python 2.8 or
RickedPython ever getting released, or the R
On 1/14/2016 3:55 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
And if the owners refuse to sell, no problem, you offer
their customers the same services at bargain basement
discounts
But... that would require you to develop your own
version, which is what you're trying to avoid!
--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Alister wrote:
>
> Doublespace disk compression springs to mind
Does not ring a bell, I was not even born for MS-DOS 6.0.
--
Bernardo Sulzbach
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
> On Jan 15, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Bernardo Sulzbach
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:02 PM, William Ray Wing wrote:
>>
>> What Micro$oft was actually sued for was worse. They would approach a small
>> company: “We like your product/technology, we think we are interested in
>> buying you
In the end, wouldn't contemporary economies benefit from more
"legislative fairness" when it comes to technology-focused businesses?
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 15/01/16 18:09, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:02 PM, William Ray Wing wrote:
What Micro$oft was actually sued for was worse. They would approach a small
company: “We like your product/technology, we think we are interested in buying
you out, but we want to see your c
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Robin Koch wrote:
>
> Not necessarily.
> See TeX. :-)
>
GvR does not like even an elegant 3.10 and you are implying that we
are going to converge to something? LOL.
--
Bernardo Sulzbach
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Am 14.01.2016 um 01:40 schrieb Bernardo Sulzbach:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
(...) 4.0 (assuming there is one)
Isn't it just a matter of time? Do you think it is even possible not
to have Python 4 eventually?
Not necessarily.
See TeX. :-)
--
Robin Koch
--
h
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:02 PM, William Ray Wing wrote:
>
> What Micro$oft was actually sued for was worse. They would approach a small
> company: “We like your product/technology, we think we are interested in
> buying you out, but we want to see your code to be sure it is
> modular/well-doc
> On Jan 15, 2016, at 9:52 AM, Emile van Sebille wrote:
>
> On 1/14/2016 3:55 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
>> But, when you have almost infinitely deep pockets, like
>> Google, you don't need to create *everything* yourself, no,
>> you simply wait for someone else to build it, then wait a
>> little l
On 1/14/2016 3:55 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
But, when you have almost infinitely deep pockets, like
Google, you don't need to create *everything* yourself, no,
you simply wait for someone else to build it, then wait a
little longer for them to market it successfully, and when
it's jt starti
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> We would have to skip a few - 3.I and 3.O are too confusing, and 3.X
> would wreak havoc with people's heads. But then, so would 3.A...
>
> Let's do this. Wreak the havoc. Unleash the folly. Dispel the sanity!
>
There would also be
3.<
3
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> Maybe Guido will change his mind and we'll have 3.10. 3.11, 3.12, ...
>
>
> Who says that version numbers have to be base 10? After
> 3.9 we could have 3.A, 3.B, ... 3.Z, and then we have
> a long list of Unicode c
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Maybe Guido will change his mind and we'll have 3.10. 3.11, 3.12, ...
Who says that version numbers have to be base 10? After
3.9 we could have 3.A, 3.B, ... 3.Z, and then we have
a long list of Unicode characters to work through before
we're forced to bump the major num
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 4:53:42 PM UTC-6, Ian wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Rick Johnson
>
> [...]
>
> > I wonder if he's considered the possibility that Google may
> > swoop in an purchase Dropbox at some time in the near
> > future, and he could find himself working for goo
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Into the sin-bin you go for another three months. Enjoy your time in
> the kill-file.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuDEP6eFkeA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> So you're suggesting that GvR *WILLINGLY* left a global, and
> well established giant, to work for a tiny start-up because
> his bosses refused to switch from Python2 to (his new baby)
> Pyhton3?
>
> So, let me get this strait: he wasn't fired
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 02:30 am, Rick Johnson wrote:
> I represent
Absolutely nobody except yourself.
The entertainment value of your trolling has now dipped below the annoyance
value. Into the sin-bin you go for another three months. Enjoy your time in
the kill-file.
--
Steven
--
https://m
I am confident that in a few years there will be sufficient new
developments in language design that some degree of backward compatibility
would be worth dropping in order to provide greater capabilities. If it
needs to fork and become another language, that's OK.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailma
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 11:41:21 AM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Prove this. Find "general public consensus" that Python is
> dead. And then, imitate rats and abandon this sinking
> ship.
I don't need to "imitate" anything, it has already begun.
> I decided to give 3D modelling a go, a
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> (3) After Python3 came along, the Python community has
> become fractured, and the Python code base has become
> fractured, and the general public consensus is that Python
> is on its way to extinction (FACT!)
Prove this. Find "genera
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:32:46 +0100
> Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote:
>> >> > Or we'll be hit by a big rock from space.
>> >> Sounds like a plan.
>> > Which one? Number 9?
>>
>> Hm, I didn't expect this question...
>>
>> plans[-1], most certainly.
>
> Hmm. Am I
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 11:46:30 PM UTC-6, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 1/13/2016 8:02 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> > and a leader who lost his cushy job at Google
>
> Unless you have access to facts that I do not, 'lost' is
> impolite speculation. But lets move on.
Well i admit my speculation
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:32:46 +0100
Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote:
> >> > Or we'll be hit by a big rock from space.
> >> Sounds like a plan.
> > Which one? Number 9?
>
> Hm, I didn't expect this question...
>
> plans[-1], most certainly.
Hmm. Am I being too subtle or...?
from OuterSpace
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 11:19:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Torrie wrote:
> The only one speculating is you. Everything I've read points to this
> idea of yours about GvR and Google being untrue.
Providing speculation is not the same as providing facts.
Please provide facts. And enumerate the
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:43:51 +0100
> Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote:
>> > Or we'll be hit by a big rock from space.
>>
>> Sounds like a plan.
>
> Which one? Number 9?
Hm, I didn't expect this question...
plans[-1], most certainly.
--
https://mail.python.org/
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:43:51 +0100
Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote:
> > Or we'll be hit by a big rock from space.
>
> Sounds like a plan.
Which one? Number 9?
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain
Vybe Networks Inc.
http://www.VybeNetworks.com/
IM:da...@vex.net VoIP: sip:da...@vybenetworks.com
--
https:/
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Or we'll be hit by a big rock from space.
Sounds like a plan.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Thursday 14 January 2016 14:29, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 9:08:40 PM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> You're talking about a very serious matter between two legal entities
>> - if someone was *fired* because of social, technological, or other
>> problems with Python
On 1/13/2016 8:02 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
and a leader who lost his cushy job at Google
Unless you have access to facts that I do not, 'lost' is impolite
speculation. But lets move on.
I have a contrary hypothesis based on the facts quoted below. As far as
I know, Google is somewhat stuck
On 01/13/2016 08:29 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Of course. But when you leave things open for speculation,
> you enviably create a situation where rumors can start
> circulating. GvR is not just any "John Doe" engineer, no,
> he's the head of an open source community, and the community
> has a right
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 9:08:40 PM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
> You're talking about a very serious matter between two legal entities
> - if someone was *fired* because of social, technological, or other
> problems with Python, that has implications that could matter in a
> court of law
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:11:40 PM UTC-6, Michael Torrie wrote:
>> Hmm, so Guido moved to Dropbox because Google fired him?
>> [...] I can find zero evidence to support your assertion,
>
> Feel free to post evidence that will *DISPRO
On Wednesday 13 January 2016 21:39:12 Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:02:59 +1100, Steven D'Aprano
>
>
> declaimed the following:
> >On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:40 am, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> >>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>> (...)
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:11:40 PM UTC-6, Michael Torrie wrote:
> Hmm, so Guido moved to Dropbox because Google fired him?
> [...] I can find zero evidence to support your assertion,
Feel free to post evidence that will *DISPROVE* my statement.
> Dishonesty is a harsh accusation, but wh
On 01/13/2016 06:02 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> In fact, in the years before Python3 arrived, it had enjoyed
> a steady ascension from obscurity into mainstream hacker
> culture, but now, all that remains is a fractured community,
> a fractured code base, and a leader who lost his cushy job
> at Goog
On 14/01/2016 01:21, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:02 PM, BartC wrote:
I was surprised recently by just how much incompatibility there was between
Python 2 and 3. It wasn't just about print with parentheses and range
instead of xrange.
I wanted to try out a jpeg decoder with
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> In fact, in the years before Python3 arrived, it had enjoyed
> a steady ascension from obscurity into mainstream hacker
> culture, but now, all that remains is a fractured community,
> a fractured code base, and a leader who lost his cushy jo
On 01/13/2016 06:02 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Or we're too busy dealing with rising sea levels, crop failures, antibiotic
> resistant diseases, chaotic mass migrations, terrorists, wars for control
> over resources like water, and the collapse of the corporate state to care
> about such little t
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:02 PM, BartC wrote:
> I was surprised recently by just how much incompatibility there was between
> Python 2 and 3. It wasn't just about print with parentheses and range
> instead of xrange.
>
> I wanted to try out a jpeg decoder with PyPy and the three different ones I
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:40 am, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> (...) 4.0 (assuming there is one)
>
> Isn't it just a matter of time? Do you think it is even possible not
> to have Python 4 eventually?
3.9 is probably five or six years awa
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 6:11:06 PM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> But [GvR] has definitely ruled that 4.0 (assuming there is
> one) will not be a major backwards-incompatible version
> like 3.0 was.
Well for the sake of Python's future, let's all hope so!
I typically don't give much we
On 13/01/2016 07:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Quote:
With the end of support for Python 2 on the horizon (in 2020),
many package developers have made their packages compatible
with both Python 2 and Python 3 by using constructs such as:
if sys.version_info[0] == 2:
On 1/13/2016 7:10 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 03:25 am, Random832 wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 09:21, sjms...@gmail.com wrote:
This strikes me as very good advice. Thanks for being so far-sighted.
And let's hope that Python 4 has fewer incompatibilities (none would
good)
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> (...) 4.0 (assuming there is one)
Isn't it just a matter of time? Do you think it is even possible not
to have Python 4 eventually?
--
Bernardo Sulzbach
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 03:25 am, Random832 wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 09:21, sjms...@gmail.com wrote:
>> This strikes me as very good advice. Thanks for being so far-sighted.
>> And let's hope that Python 4 has fewer incompatibilities (none would
>> good) than Python 3!
>
> Who says there's
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> if six.PY2:
>> # Python 2 code
>> elif six.PY3:
>> # Python 3 code
>>
>> In this case, no code will get executed on Python 4 at all!
>
>
> Which is good, be
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Quote:
if six.PY2:
# Python 2 code
elif six.PY3:
# Python 3 code
In this case, no code will get executed on Python 4 at all!
Which is good, because if no code is executed, it can't exhibit
any bugs.
Everyone should write thei
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Random832 wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 09:21, sjms...@gmail.com wrote:
>> This strikes me as very good advice. Thanks for being so far-sighted.
>> And let's hope that Python 4 has fewer incompatibilities (none would
>> good) than Python 3!
>
> Who says there'
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 09:21, sjms...@gmail.com wrote:
> This strikes me as very good advice. Thanks for being so far-sighted.
> And let's hope that Python 4 has fewer incompatibilities (none would
> good) than Python 3!
Who says there's going to be a Python 4? I always assumed 3.9 would be
fol
This strikes me as very good advice. Thanks for being so far-sighted. And
let's hope that Python 4 has fewer incompatibilities (none would good) than
Python 3!
Cheers,
Steve J. Martin
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
/01/12/stop-writing-python-4-
incompatible-code/
or http://tinyurl.com/jskt54s
Better still, don't do version checks *at all*. There is almost never any
need for a version check. Better is to use feature detection:
try:
xrange # Succeeds in Python 2.
except NameError:
xrange =
63 matches
Mail list logo
