Diez B. Roggisch schrieb:
And I have been benefiting from Python in general, so far. Thanks,
community.
But now... I'll probably stop posting here for now, I may stop other
things too.
Just my 2c.
You know what I was just wondering about? All these C-written
cross-platform libraries
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
.
You know what I was just wondering about? All these C-written
cross-platform libraries (which Python users benefit from, most probably
including evven you) that run on different unixes windows, which are a
much greater diversity to handle than the
Robin Becker schrieb:
I'm in the process of attempting a straightforward port of a relatively
simple package which does most of its work by writing out files with a
more or less complicated set of possible encodings. So far I have used
all the 2to3 tools and a lot of effort, but still don't
On Apr 18, 1:39 am, Sverker Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some whine. Some just don't care. Why not whine?
Whining and ranting is actually good for the psyche. It is better to
get it out of your system.
As for your original post, no doubt there are substantial downsides to
introducing Py3K,
On Apr 17, 12:27 pm, Michael Torrie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the big deal?
The big deal is that I would love to see Django
become the standard platform for web development,
for example. That will be much less likely if
60% of the contributed tools for Django don't work
for Python 3000
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:16:35 -0700, Aaron Watters wrote:
The big deal is that I would love to see Django become the standard
platform for web development, for example. That will be much less
likely if 60% of the contributed tools for Django don't work for Python
3000 and 20% don't work for
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 04:10:48PM -0700, Sverker Nilsson wrote:
do i dare to open a thread about this?
come on you braver men
we are at least not bought by g***le
but why? others have said it so many times i think
:-
but why? a few syntactic 'cleanups' for the cost of a huge
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:32:15 -0700, Nick Stinemates [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Yo, no one here is a child
Hi Nick,
Actually, there are a number of young people on the list. So let's keep things
civil and try to avoid using harsh language.
Thanks!
Jean-Paul
--
On Apr 17, 12:02 am, Carl Banks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:40 pm, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:27 pm, Rhamphoryncus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't get it. It ain't broke. Don't fix it.
On Apr 17, 12:02 am, Carl Banks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:40 pm, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:27 pm, Rhamphoryncus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't get it. It ain't broke. Don't fix it.
On 16 Apr, 15:16, Marco Mariani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you mean Ruby's track in providing backward compatibility is better
than Python's?
Googling for that a bit, I would reckon otherwise.
So would I, but then it isn't the Ruby developers that are *promising*
to break backward
On Apr 17, 4:41 am, Sverker Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 17, 12:02 am, Carl Banks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:40 pm, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:27 pm, Rhamphoryncus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters [EMAIL
On Apr 16, 3:33 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, I'd venture that the division changes with ints are the only
thing I'm really concerned about...
Oh I forgot about this one. Yes, I think it's a mistake to
adopt a different convention for division than
Aaron Watters wrote:
What I'm saying is that, for example, there are a lot
of cool tools out there for using Python to manipulate
postscript and latex and such. Most of those tools
require no maintenance, and the authors are not paying
any attention to them, and they aren't interested in
And I have been benefiting from Python in general, so far. Thanks,
community.
But now... I'll probably stop posting here for now, I may stop other
things too.
Just my 2c.
You know what I was just wondering about? All these C-written
cross-platform libraries (which Python users benefit
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
And I have been benefiting from Python in general, so far. Thanks,
community.
But now... I'll probably stop posting here for now, I may stop other
things too.
Just my 2c.
You know what I was just wondering about? All these C-written
cross-platform libraries
On Apr 18, 12:59 am, Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I have been benefiting from Python in general, so far. Thanks,
community.
But now... I'll probably stop posting here for now, I may stop other
things too.
Just my 2c.
You know what I was just wondering about? All
On Apr 18, 1:27 am, John Machin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
And I have been benefiting from Python in general, so far. Thanks,
community.
But now... I'll probably stop posting here for now, I may stop other
things too.
Just my 2c.
You know what I was just
Thanks for your well-formulated article
Providing the Python infrastructure with my program doesn't apply
since I am providing a program/library that is intended to be
general.
So it doesn't help.
All that py3k does to me, it seems, is some extra work.
To be frank, no innovation. Just changes,
To be frank, no innovation. Just changes, no progress. And yes, I am
pd.
anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering
Somebody compared it with MS stuff. Yes.
It's not similar at all. MS will first force all your customers/users to
upgrade to their newest software, at the same time
On Apr 15, 12:30 am, Sverker Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No one forces me, but sooner or later they will want a Python 3.0 and
then a 3.1 whatever.
I don't want that fuzz. As about the C versions, I am not that
worried. What's your point?
I just like want to write a program that will
Aaron Watters wrote:
stuff out there you can get so easily -- all the stuff that py3k
will break -- most of which won't get ported -- and if it does can
we be sure it will be tested properly? No, probably you will end
up beta testing someone's quick port of what used to be rock
solid
On Apr 16, 9:16 am, Marco Mariani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you mean Ruby's track in providing backward compatibility is better
than Python's?
Googling for that a bit, I would reckon otherwise.
I can't comment on that. Ruby is a lot younger
-- I'd expect it to still be stabilizing a bit.
On 16 abr, 09:56, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion python's adherence to backwards compatibility
has been a bit mythological anyway -- many new python versions
have broken my old code for no good reason. This is an irritant
when you have thousands of users out there who
On 15 abr, 13:58, Michael Torrie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After parsing this thread through a noise filter, it appears the main
concern is not the converting of _python code_ from 2 to 3, but rather
converting extensions written in C, or when python is embedded in a C
program. The APIs have
On Apr 16, 11:15 am, Gabriel Genellina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16 abr, 09:56, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion python's adherence to backwards compatibility
has been a bit mythological anyway -- many new python versions
have broken my old code for no good reason.
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe there is a secret desire in the Python
community to remain a fringe minority underdog
forever?
I'm sure anyone who has given it any thought understands that
the fringe minority situation is a lot more fun in some
On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't get it. It ain't broke. Don't fix it.
So how would you have done the old-style class to new-style class
transition?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Apr 16, 12:27 pm, Rhamphoryncus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't get it. It ain't broke. Don't fix it.
So how would you have done the old-style class to new-style class
transition?
I'd ignore it. I never understood it and
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:27 pm, Rhamphoryncus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't get it. It ain't broke. Don't fix it.
So how would you have done the old-style
Since you don't care about any of the changes or features, and you
don't care if your users care, I'm not sure why you aren't just using
python 2.1. It's not like it's being erased via time machine. Just
keep using the old thing is a perfectly valid and extremely common
futureproofing
On Apr 16, 10:40 am, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:27 pm, Rhamphoryncus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't get it. It ain't broke. Don't fix it.
So how would you have done the old-style class to new-style
On Apr 16, 1:42 pm, Rhamphoryncus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only reason to not make the
changes is that old, crufty, unmaintained libraries applications
might depend on them somehow. If that's more important to you, what
you really want is a language who's specs are frozen - much like C
On Apr 16, 12:10 pm, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 1:42 pm, Rhamphoryncus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only reason to not make the
changes is that old, crufty, unmaintained libraries applications
might depend on them somehow. If that's more important to you, what
On Apr 16, 2:33 pm, Rhamphoryncus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either you evolve the
language and break things, or you keep it static and nothing breaks.
I disagree. You can add lots of cool
stuff without breaking the existing code base, mostly.
For
En Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:09:05 -0300, Aaron Watters
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
On Apr 16, 11:15 am, Gabriel Genellina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16 abr, 09:56, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion python's adherence to backwards compatibility
has been a bit mythological
Also in the case of C/java etc changing the infrastructure
is less scary because you usually find out about problems
when the compile or link fails. For Python you may not find
out about it until the program has been run many times.
Perhaps this will inspire improved linters and better
On Apr 16, 2:52 pm, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree. You can add lots of cool
stuff without breaking the existing code base, mostly.
For example the minor changes to the way ints will work will
effect almost no programs.
Wow, I'd venture that the division changes with
On Apr 16, 12:52 pm, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 2:33 pm, Rhamphoryncus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either you evolve the
language and break things, or you keep it static and nothing breaks.
I disagree. You can add lots of
Aaron Watters wrote:
On Apr 16, 2:33 pm, Rhamphoryncus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either you evolve the
language and break things, or you keep it static and nothing breaks.
I disagree. You can add lots of cool
stuff without breaking the existing
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:32:00 -0700, Aaron Watters wrote:
Perhaps this will inspire improved linters and better coding
practices
Better coding practices such as extensive unit tests?
Greetings from Earth. What planet are you from? :)
There is always the possibility that frustrated
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Watters wrote:
The cost paid for these minor improvements is too high in my
book. But I suppose if it is going to happen do it sooner
rather than later. Just *please* *please* don't
systematically break the
On Apr 16, 12:40 pm, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:27 pm, Rhamphoryncus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't get it. It ain't broke. Don't fix it.
So how would you have done the old-style class to new-style
On Apr 14, 11:07 pm, Sverker Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What serious reports?
You almost had me collecting a list of reports/references. Almost :)
Google and you'll find them.
Regards,
Daniel
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Sverker Nilsson wrote:
[about code supporting multiple Python versions]
When it has been the fuzz with versions before, then I could have the
same code still work with older versions. But now it seems I have to
fork TWO codes. [...]
I don't think many people have ported their C extensions to
On 15-Apr-08, at 12:30 AM, Sverker Nilsson wrote:
No one forces me, but sooner or later they will want a Python 3.0 and
then a 3.1 whatever.
I don't want that fuzz. As about the C versions, I am not that
worried. What's your point?
I just like want to write a program that will stay
Chris McAloney wrote:
*Have* you tried the 2to3 tool? It might help to lessen your
concerns a bit. Yes, Python 3 is different from 2.x, but we've known
that it was going to be for years and, as has already been pointed
out, the devs are being very careful to minimize the pain that the
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Sverker Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No one forces me, but sooner or later they will want a Python 3.0 and
then a 3.1 whatever.
I don't want that fuzz. As about the C versions, I am not that
worried. What's your point?
I just like want to write a
Sverker Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| What serious reports?
http://wiki.python.org/moin/Early2to3Migrations
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
do i dare to open a thread about this?
come on you braver men
we are at least not bought by g***le
but why? others have said it so many times i think
:-
but why? a few syntactic 'cleanups' for the cost of a huge rewrite of
all the code that have been builtup from all the beginning when
Sverker Nilsson wrote:
do i dare to open a thread about this?
come on you braver men
we are at least not bought by g***le
but why? others have said it so many times i think
:-
but why? a few syntactic 'cleanups' for the cost of a huge rewrite of
all the code that have been
Sverker Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
do i dare to open a thread about this?
If you do so, please use less inflammatory language. You can't expect
a reasoned debate if you use such hyperbole and emotional attacks.
Discussion is welcome. Flaming isn't.
--
\ He who laughs
On Apr 14, 8:10 pm, Sverker Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
do i dare to open a thread about this?
Yeah, you sure do!
come on you braver men
Yeah!
we are at least not bought by g***le
Hell no!
but why? others have said it so many times i think
Huh?!
:-
?! Whatever!
but why? a few
On Apr 15, 1:34 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sverker Nilsson wrote:
do i dare to open a thread about this?
come on you braver men
we are at least not bought by g***le
but why? others have said it so many times i think
:-
but why? a few syntactic 'cleanups' for
On Apr 15, 2:58 am, ajaksu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 14, 8:10 pm, Sverker Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: do i dare to
open a thread about this?
Yeah, you sure do!
come on you braver men
Yeah!
we are at least not bought by g***le
Hell no!
but why? others have said it so
En Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:02:38 -0300, Sverker Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
I tried out py3k on my project, http://guppy-pe.sf.net
And what happened?
I've seen that your project already supports Python 2.6 so the migration
path to 3.0 should be easy.
--
Gabriel Genellina
--
On Apr 15, 2:58 am, ajaksu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 14, 8:10 pm, Sverker Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: do i dare to
open a thread about this?
Yeah, you sure do!
come on you braver men
Yeah!
we are at least not bought by g***le
Hell no!
but why? others have said it so
On Apr 15, 3:50 am, Gabriel Genellina [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
En Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:02:38 -0300, Sverker Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
I tried out py3k on my project,http://guppy-pe.sf.net
And what happened?
I've seen that your project already supports Python 2.6 so the migration
En Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:38:56 -0300, Sverker Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
On Apr 15, 3:50 am, Gabriel Genellina [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
En Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:02:38 -0300, Sverker Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
I tried out py3k on my project,http://guppy-pe.sf.net
And what
No one forces me, but sooner or later they will want a Python 3.0 and
then a 3.1 whatever.
I don't want that fuzz. As about the C versions, I am not that
worried. What's your point?
I just like want to write a program that will stay working. And maybe
I can go on with something else hopefully
En Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:30:05 -0300, Sverker Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
No one forces me, but sooner or later they will want a Python 3.0 and
then a 3.1 whatever.
Welcome to the software industry!
If it isn't Python changing, it's the operating system, the processor
architecture,
61 matches
Mail list logo
