I just
couldn't get through on the python-dev list that I couldn't just
upgrade my code to 2.6 and then use 2to3 to keep in step across the
2-3 chasm, as this would leave behind my faithful pre-2.6 users.
Not sure whom you had been talking to. But I would have tried to explain
that you don't
Martin v. Loewis mar...@v.loewis.de writes:
The point, one more time with feeling, is that the incompatibilities
between 2.x and 3.x will *increase* over time.
I think this is unfounded, and actually false.
Since many other people have responded with similar sentiments, I can
only think I
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:10:57 -0700, Brendan Abel wrote:
The entire fact that 3.x was *designed* to be incompatible should tell
you that supporting 2.x and 3.x with a single code base is a bad idea,
except for the very smallest of projects.
I don't see that follows at all. If the
2010/7/8 Michele Simionato michele.simion...@gmail.com:
On Jul 7, 10:55 pm, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:31 am, Paul McGuire pt...@austin.rr.com wrote:
I just
couldn't get through on the python-dev list that I couldn't just
upgrade my code to 2.6 and then use 2to3
On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:26 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/7/2010 5:29 AM, geremy condra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Terry Reedytjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 7/5/2010 9:00 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip
On Jul 6, 3:30 am, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:30 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions below 2.6 is
Paul McGuire pt...@austin.rr.com writes:
is completely forward and backward incompatible. The workaround is to
rewrite as:
except ExceptionType:
ex = sys.exc_info()[0]
which works just fine in 2.x and 3.x.
Are you sure? I wonder if there might be some race condition that
On 07/07/2010 10:58 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
Paul McGuire pt...@austin.rr.com writes:
is completely forward and backward incompatible. The workaround is to
rewrite as:
except ExceptionType:
ex = sys.exc_info()[0]
which works just fine in 2.x and 3.x.
Are you sure? I wonder if
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 7/5/2010 9:00 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchuk
I ported two pure C extensions from 2 to 3 and was even able to keep a
single C
On 7/2/10 3:07 PM, John Nagle wrote:
That's the real issue, not parentheses on the print statement.
Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster.
It doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6. There's no
killer app for it. End of life for Python 2.x is many years away;
In article 5325a$4c349b5b$4275d90a$27...@fuse.net,
Kevin Walzer k...@codebykevin.com wrote:
That's decision for each business to make. My guess is that many
businesses won't upgrade for some time, until the major
libraries/modules support Python 3. I don't plan to move to Python 3 for
at
On Jul 7, 1:31 am, Paul McGuire pt...@austin.rr.com wrote:
On Jul 6, 3:30 am, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul
6, 2010 at 4:30 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
significant userbase IMHO. As such, the idea of running the python 3
warnings is
Brendan Abel wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
significant userbase IMHO. As such, the idea of running the python 3
John Nagle na...@animats.com writes:
Python 3 is a nice cleanup of some legacy syntax issues. But
that's just not enough. Perl 6 is a nice cleanup of Perl 5,
Eh, I wouldn't call Perl 6 a nice cleanup. It's much better to
consider it a new language with roots in Perl 5 (amongst others). Or
On Jul 7, 3:00 pm, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Brendan Abel wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Brendan Abel 007bren...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 7, 3:00 pm, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Brendan Abel wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
geremy condra debat...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Brendan Abel 007bren...@gmail.com wrote:
Python 3.x will continue to change. The incompatibilities between
3.x and 2.x will only become more numerous. If your goal is to
support 2.x, and 3.x, you'd be best
geremy condra wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Brendan Abel 007bren...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 7, 3:00 pm, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Brendan Abel wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to
On Jul 5, 1:34 am, sturlamolden sturlamol...@yahoo.no wrote:
On 5 Jul, 01:58, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
Exactly.
The incompatible with all extension modules I need part
is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are
On Jul 7, 2:10 pm, Brendan Abel 007bren...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
significant
Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au writes:
The point, one more time with feeling, is that the incompatibilities
between 2.x and 3.x will *increase* over time.
The issue is less the incompatibilities than the -backwards-
incompatibilities. Yes, Python 3 may introduce forward
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
geremy condra debat...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Brendan Abel 007bren...@gmail.com wrote:
Python 3.x will continue to change. The incompatibilities between
3.x and 2.x will only become more
Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid writes:
Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au writes:
The point, one more time with feeling, is that the incompatibilities
between 2.x and 3.x will *increase* over time.
The issue is less the incompatibilities than the -backwards-
incompatibilities.
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:31 am, Paul McGuire pt...@austin.rr.com wrote:
On Jul 6, 3:30 am, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul
6, 2010 at 4:30 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net wrote:
One thing that would
On 7/7/2010 5:29 AM, geremy condra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Terry Reedytjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 7/5/2010 9:00 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchu
I ported two pure C extensions from 2
geremy condra debat...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
[backward-]incompatibilities between 2.x and 3.x will *increase*
over time.
...and? I don't get to use features from 2.7, why would I expect to
use features from 3.3?
On 7/7/2010 4:31 AM, Paul McGuire wrote:
[snip interesting report on how Paul suppost pyparsing for 2.3 to 3.1]
Thank you for this.
Do you think such cross-version support would have been easier or harder
if the major changes and deletions in 3.0 has been spread over several
versions, such
Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au writes:
On the other hand, the door appears closed for Python 3 adding more
stuff that breaks Python 2 code.
What gives you that idea? Can you reference a specific statement from
the PYthon developers that says that?
It's just logic. As I understand it,
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
geremy condra debat...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au
wrote:
[backward-]incompatibilities between 2.x and 3.x will *increase*
over time.
...and? I don't
On 7/7/2010 9:14 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
The point, one more time with feeling, is that the incompatibilities
between 2.x and 3.x will *increase* over time.
For the purpose of maintaining least-common-denominator multi-version
code, it is only deletions and semantic changes that matter.
Dear Paul McGuire:
Thank you very much for these notes!
See also a few other notes:
Michael Foord:
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/weblog/arch_d7_2010_03_20.shtml#e1167
Ned Batchelder:
http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/200910/running_the_same_code_on_python_2x_and_3x.html
I was wondering if it
On 7/7/2010 10:49 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
Yes, that's what I meant. Python 3 is deliberately under no obligation
to support code that works in Python 2. If something needs fixing, and
that fix would involve breaking Python 2 code, then that's not a
consideration any more.
Code that works in 3.1
Am 07.07.2010 23:10, schrieb Brendan Abel:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
significant userbase IMHO. As such, the idea of
On Jul 7, 10:55 pm, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:31 am, Paul McGuire pt...@austin.rr.com wrote:
I just
couldn't get through on the python-dev list that I couldn't just
upgrade my code to 2.6 and then use 2to3 to keep in step across the
2-3 chasm, as this would
Python 3.x will continue to change. The incompatibilities between 3.x
and 2.x will only become more numerous. If your goal is to support
2.x, and 3.x, you'd be best supporting them separately.
I don't think that's a particularly good approach. Having a single code
base for both likely
The point, one more time with feeling, is that the incompatibilities
between 2.x and 3.x will *increase* over time.
I think this is unfounded, and actually false.
Instead, the incompatibilities will *decrease* over the next few years.
Suppose you support 2.x and 3.x from a single code base.
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:30 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
or something else that they need?
How about a basic how-to
Steven D'Aprano, 05.07.2010 08:31:
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:34:04 -0700, sturlamolden wrote:
Using Python 2.x for new
projects is not advisable (at least many will think so), and using 3.x
is not possible. What to do? It's not a helpful situation for Python.
That's pure FUD.
Python 2.7 will
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:30:34 +0800
David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
Yes, PyGreSQL
On Jul 5, 2:56 am, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
The Twisted team has a list of what they need:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/172306/how-are-you-planning-on-han...;
Here's what I got from a quick google review of the below four
projects and python 3.
* Zope Interface
2010/7/6 David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com:
Or is there no change at the C level? That would make things easy.
There are quite a few, but outside of the big pain point of
strings/byte/unicode which is present at python level as well, a lot
of the issues are not so big (and even simpler to
On 7/6/2010 11:19 AM, Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
2010/7/6 David Cournapeaucourn...@gmail.com:
Or is there no change at the C level? That would make things easy.
There are quite a few, but outside of the big pain point of
strings/byte/unicode which is present at python level as well, a lot
of
On 07/06/2010 07:17 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
docs.python.org / dev/3.0/howto/cporting.html
http://docs.python.org/py3k/howto/cporting.html
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Jul 6, 12:37 am, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
In his post on this thread, Martin Loewis volunteered to list what he
knows from psycopg2 if someone else will edit.
Now we are getting somewhere! This is the community spirit i want to
see. You don't have to give much people, every
On Jul 2, 4:07 pm, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
I think one point which needs to be emphasized more is what does
python 3 bring to people. The what's new in python 3 page gives
the impression that python 3 is about removing cruft. That's a
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:34:04 -0700, sturlamolden wrote:
Using Python 2.x for new
projects is not advisable (at least many will think so), and using 3.x
is not possible. What to do? It's not a helpful situation for Python.
That's pure FUD.
Python 2.7 will be supported longer than the normal
On 7/4/2010 10:44 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/4/2010 7:58 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The incompatible with all extension modules I need part
is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to
Python 3 by major projects with many
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:59:03 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
Denying that there's a problem does not help.
Nobody is denying that there is a problem, but there are plenty of people
denying that there are any solutions.
The folks doing development of CPython are genuinely interested in
constructive
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 7/4/2010 7:58 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The incompatible with all extension modules I need part
is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to
Python 3 by
On 7/5/2010 2:56 AM, John Nagle wrote:
On 7/4/2010 10:44 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
I you have any other ideas about other top blockers, please share them.
The Twisted team has a list of what they need:
On 7/5/2010 6:04 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Terry Reedytjre...@udel.edu wrote:
[snip]
I think numpy will work for 3.1 as well
If numpy were released today for 3.1 (or even anytime before 3.2), that
would be great. It would let those waiting for it that it
On 7/5/10 2:56 AM, John Nagle wrote:
* PyCrypto
* PyOpenSSL
These, and Mark Pilgrim's feedparser, need to be 3.x compatible before I
can think about Python 3.x.
--
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin
http://www.codebykevin.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
or something else that they need?
How about a basic how-to document? I maintain PyGreSQL and would like
to move it to 3.x right now but
Am 05.07.2010 22:30, schrieb D'Arcy J.M. Cain:
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
or something else that they need?
How about a basic how-to document? I maintain
On 7/5/2010 12:35 PM, Kevin Walzer wrote:
On 7/5/10 2:56 AM, John Nagle wrote:
* PyCrypto
* PyOpenSSL
These, and Mark Pilgrim's feedparser, need to be 3.x compatible before I
can think about Python 3.x.
There's been an attempt to port feedparser to 3.0, but
that needed a port of
On Jul 5, 2010, at 4:30 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
or something else that they need?
How about a basic how-to document? I maintain
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchuk phi...@semanchuk.com wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 4:30 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
or
On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchuk
phi...@semanchuk.com wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 4:30 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Good start. Now what is blocking those
On 7/5/2010 9:00 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchuk
I ported two pure C extensions from 2 to 3 and was even able to keep a
single C codebase. I'd be willing to contribute my experiences to a
document
On 2 Jul, 21:07, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
http://jens.mooseyard.com/2008/12/python-30-whats-the-point/
He is right on. The only thing Python 3k will do for me, is break all
my code and be incompatible with all extension modules I need. What's
the point? indeed.
--
On 7/4/2010 1:20 PM, sturlamolden wrote:
On 2 Jul, 21:07, John Naglena...@animats.com wrote:
http://jens.mooseyard.com/2008/12/python-30-whats-the-point/
He is right on. The only thing Python 3k will do for me, is break all
my code and be incompatible with all extension modules I need.
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 16:58:04 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
The incompatible with all extension modules I need part
is the problem right now. A good first step would be to identify the
top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to Python 3 by major
projects with many users.
Are you
On 5 Jul, 01:58, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
Exactly.
The incompatible with all extension modules I need part
is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to
Python 3 by major projects with many users.
On 7/4/2010 5:34 PM, sturlamolden wrote:
On 5 Jul, 01:58, John Naglena...@animats.com wrote:
Exactly.
The incompatible with all extension modules I need part is the
problem right now. A good first step would be to identify the top
5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to Python 3 by
On Jul 4, 8:59 pm, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
That's what happens when you
mismanage an incompatible transition.
+1
Python has strong competition. In the last two years,
Javascript has become much faster, PHP is getting a JIT compiler,
Lua, as recently mentioned, is getting
On 7/4/2010 7:58 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The incompatible with all extension modules I need part
is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to
Python 3 by major projects with many users.
Let me repeat. Last September, if not
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:07:33 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
I think one point which needs to be emphasized more is what does
python 3 bring to people. The what's new in python 3 page gives
the impression that python 3 is about removing cruft. That's a very
poor argument to push people to switch.
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:40:34 -0700
John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
Not according to Vex's published package list:
http://www.vex.net/info/tech/pkglist/
As it says on that page it may not be up to date. Look at the
generated list link. I guess I should update the static page
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:40:34 -0700
John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
Not according to Vex's published package list:
http://www.vex.net/info/tech/pkglist/
Hold on. That *is* the generated list and Python 3.1 is on it. We
have both 2.6 and 3.1. The 3.1 version is listed right
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 08:46:57 -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:40:34 -0700
John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
Not according to Vex's published package list:
http://www.vex.net/info/tech/pkglist/
Hold on. That *is* the generated list and Python 3.1 is on
* Steven D'Aprano, on 03.07.2010 16:24:
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 08:46:57 -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:40:34 -0700
John Naglena...@animats.com wrote:
Not according to Vex's published package list:
http://www.vex.net/info/tech/pkglist/
Hold on. That *is*
In article mailman.192.1278160797.1673.python-l...@python.org,
D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:40:34 -0700
John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
vex.net isn't exactly a major hosting service.
OK, I'll give you that. It is on the backbone of the net at 151 Front
On 03 Jul 2010 14:24:49 GMT
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
Pfft! Facts! You can prove anything you like with facts!
Argumentum ad Dragnet?
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/| and a
On 7/3/2010 5:46 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:40:34 -0700
John Naglena...@animats.com wrote:
Not according to Vex's published package list:
http://www.vex.net/info/tech/pkglist/
Hold on. That *is* the generated list and Python 3.1 is on it. We
have both
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 09:48:09 -0700
John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
The base Python 3.1 is installed there, but without any modules.
We install modules as clients ask for them. No one has yet requested a
Python 3 module.
On a hosting service, a raw Python with none of those modules
David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
I think one point which needs to be emphasized more is what does
python 3 bring to people. The what's new in python 3 page gives
the impression that python 3 is about removing cruft. That's a very
poor argument to push people to switch.
That's the
On 07/02/2010 09:07 PM, John Nagle wrote:
What I'm not seeing is a deployment plan along these lines:
1.Identify key modules which must be converted before Python 3
can be used in production environments.
That depends VERY strongly on the environment in question.
2.
On Jul 2, 12:07 pm, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
This has all been said before.
Yes, we know. And when no one did anything about it the first dozen
times it's been said, it wasn't because we didn't hear it, it was
because we didn't care. We still don't care now, and won't care no
In article 4c2e38f5.10...@animats.com, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
webfaction.com has python3.1
--
Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/
If you don't know what your program is
John Nagle na...@animats.com writes:
Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster.
It's faster to learn, because there's less to learn.
How do you know that it's not faster? That's a matter of the speed of
individual Python implementations. What data do you have?
It
On 7/2/2010 3:00 PM, Aahz wrote:
In article4c2e38f5.10...@animats.com, John Naglena...@animats.com wrote:
5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
webfaction.com has python3.1
WebFaction's big thing is that they have a really good system for
installing
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:07:33 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster. It
doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6. There's no killer app
for it. End of life for Python 2.x is many years away; most server Linux
distros aren't even
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Steven D'Aprano
st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:07:33 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster. It
doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6. There's no killer app
In article 4c2e79d3$0$1663$742ec...@news.sonic.net,
John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
On 7/2/2010 3:00 PM, Aahz wrote:
In article4c2e38f5.10...@animats.com, John Naglena...@animats.com wrote:
5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
webfaction.com has
On 7/2/2010 3:07 PM, John Nagle wrote:
That's the real issue, not parentheses on the print statement.
Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster.
It doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6.
False. One cannot run code in 2.6 that depends on bugfixes in 3.1. Nor
On 2 Jul 2010 15:00:17 -0700
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
webfaction.com has python3.1
So does http://www.Vex.Net/ so there's your two.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net | Democracy is three wolves
On 7/2/2010 9:10 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On 2 Jul 2010 15:00:17 -0700
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
webfaction.com has python3.1
So does http://www.Vex.Net/ so there's your two.
Not according to Vex's
88 matches
Mail list logo
