RE: Python 3.0 migration plans?
TheFlyingDutchman wrote: On Sep 28, 1:09 pm, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's because the tutor list doesn't offer a newsgroup. He was probably just trying to get rid of you. Now at 98.75% ... Not sure if that's the reading on your trollmeter or on the meter that measures what percentage of your posts you get huffy. I would imagine it's the SpamBayes score your posts are currently getting on Steve's machine. Tim Delaney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On 9/27/07, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wondered if a straw poll could get some idea of readers' thoughts about when they will be migrating to 3.0 on, so I used the new widget on Blogger to add a poll for that. I'd appreciate if if you would go to http://holdenweb.blogspot.com/ and register your vote on your intended migration timescale. The options should have all been relative to the release date. Options one and two might very well be the same (yes, I know, but shit happens). Also, you're relying on people knowing the current timeframe for 3.0. -- Nick -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
Couldn't agree with you more. What would be fantastic is if I could drop into the Pypi (and/or use easy_install) and download automatically compiled versions of extension modules for different versions of python. I'm sure the community at large would be happy to chip in an annual fee to help build/maintain this infrastructure: I know my firm would. PS: IMHO The growth of Ruby is, to a large extent, due to easy installation of modules via its gem system... On Sep 28, 6:53 pm, John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Insofar as Python has an organization, it's not adequately managing extension modules. Each extension module has its own infrastructure, with its own build procedures, its own bug list, and its own maintainers. There's not even an archive. Unlike CPAN, Cheese Shop is just a directory of URLs. Take a look at how Perl does it. Here are the instructions on how to contribute to CPAN: http://www.cpan.org/modules/04pause.html There's a way to get your module into the system, a standardized format, build, and installation procedure, and an archive which is mirrored. There's a common bug reporting system. Modules abandoned by their original developers are not lost, and can be adopted by someone else. Python doesn't have any of this. And that's far more of a problem than Python 3.x. John Nagle -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Sep 30, 2:29 am, John Roth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking of starting work on converting Python FIT to 3.0, and then they posted PEP 3137. I think it's a real good idea, but it shows that 3.0a1 isn't ready for a conversion effort. http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3137/ I'll look at it again in a year or so. John Roth When 3.0b1 comes out is probably the time to start looking seriously at conversion. Until then, major course corrections (like PEP 3137) will still be a possibility. Before the first beta, the best idea is probably just to keep a watchful eye on the development to see if you spot any show-stopper problems that might lead to the need for such a course correction :) Regards, Nick. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
NickC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | When 3.0b1 comes out is probably the time to start looking seriously | at conversion. Until then, major course corrections (like PEP 3137) | will still be a possibility. Before the first beta, the best idea is | probably just to keep a watchful eye on the development to see if you | spot any show-stopper problems that might lead to the need for such a | course correction :) It was people who did that, partly by trying to convert or write small snippets of code, who found problems and persuaded Guido that PEP 3137 was needed. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:56:48 -0400, Stephan Deibel wrote: Ian Dickinson wrote: Never would look like a good time scale to me given that a lot of the stuff I use is being ripped out Has any one actually converted any real code or significant bits of code using the 3.0 converter (in the sandbox somewhere), and if so what kinds of things actually failed? Well, since the converter is designed to convert 2.6 and above, and since there isn't much Python 2.6 code out there yet, I'd say nothing significant. :) Anyways, it is not designed to convert arbitrary code that's lying around: it's designed to convert a supported subset of Python 2.6+ into Python 3.0. You'd have to write transitional Python to use the tool. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:56:48 -0400, Stephan Deibel wrote: Ian Dickinson wrote: Never would look like a good time scale to me given that a lot of the stuff I use is being ripped out Has any one actually converted any real code or significant bits of code using the 3.0 converter (in the sandbox somewhere), and if so what kinds of things actually failed? Well, since the converter is designed to convert 2.6 and above, and since there isn't much Python 2.6 code out there yet, I'd say nothing significant. :) Anyways, it is not designed to convert arbitrary code that's lying around: it's designed to convert a supported subset of Python 2.6+ into Python 3.0. You'd have to write transitional Python to use the tool. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
I've posted my vote. However, I guess it won't be that simple in practice. I suspect that the following is more likely: 1) Migrate to 3000 fairly soon after release for scripts and new projects for which required third party modules are available for 3k 2) Migrate existing projects to 3k a) when frameworks/modules that they use are available and b) if and when doing so would be advantageous. I suspect that many of the projects I have that are solid and are in no imminent need of development will remain 3k for several years. Cheers, -- Ant -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Sat, 2007-09-29 at 04:09 +, John Nagle wrote: [...] For example, MySQL AB supports a Perl binding to MySQL, but not a Python binding. And what's your point, other than that apparently MySQL AB doesn't care about Python? -- Carsten Haese http://informixdb.sourceforge.net -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On 9/28/07, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but none of those examples showed something in C++ similar to a decorator in Python - that is, unique syntax in the language for implementing a Higher Order Function. One thing I will say about those examples is that they make Python decorators look sweet! That is exactly one of the points in having decorators, as far as I can tell. Namely, that higher order functions are easily implemented, if and when needed. Francesco -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Sep 27, 5:37 pm, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wondered if a straw poll could get some idea of readers' thoughts about when they will be migrating to 3.0 on, so I used the new widget on Blogger to add a poll for that. I'd appreciate if if you would go to http://holdenweb.blogspot.com/ and register your vote on your intended migration timescale. Thanks! -- Steve Holden+1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Sorry, the dog ate my .sigline I was thinking of starting work on converting Python FIT to 3.0, and then they posted PEP 3137. I think it's a real good idea, but it shows that 3.0a1 isn't ready for a conversion effort. http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3137/ I'll look at it again in a year or so. John Roth -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
TheFlyingDutchman schrieb: - Abstract Base Classes URL:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3119/ I like how someone here characterized decorators - those silly @ things. They remind me of Perl. Not adding keywords for abstract and static is like Perl not adding a keyword for class. But I know all such additions are vigorously defended by the most ardent users of each language. The fact that you compare and criticise the simple annotations like static or abstract with the much more powerful decorator concept shows that, despite being the maintainer of a soon-to-be-ruling-the-python-world Python 3 fork, lack understanding of even the most basic language features. Which isn't exactly news.[1] The decorator syntax was vigorously discussed. I personally don't mind the @-based syntax, but could live with anything else - because I like and often need the feature for it's capabilities. Maybe you should start using python more and _then_ start discussions about it's features, when you have good grounds and can provide viable alternatives? But I guess that's a wish that won't be granted Diez [1] http://groups.google.de/group/comp.lang.python/browse_thread/thread/a9a52694148fc52c/28c9ee2e1c64cdde#28c9ee2e1c64cdde -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
Never would look like a good time scale to me given that a lot of the stuff I use is being ripped out -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TheFlyingDutchman wrote: It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than what it adds. What are the additions that people find the most compelling? I'd rather see Python 2.5 finished, so it just works. And I'd rather see peace on Earth and goodwill among men than _either_ Python 3 or your cherished finished 2.5 -- the comparison and implied tradeoff make about as much sense as yours. All the major third-party libraries working and available with working builds for all major platforms. That working set of components in all the major distros used on servers. The major hosting companies having that up and running on their servers. Windows installers that install a collection of components that all play well together. That's what I mean by working. I.e., you mean tasks appropriate for maintainers of all the major third-party libraries, distros, and hosting companies -- great, go convince them, or go convince all warmongers on Earth to make peace if you want an even harder tasks with even better potential impact on the state of the world, then. Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
Alex Martelli wrote: John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TheFlyingDutchman wrote: It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than what it adds. What are the additions that people find the most compelling? I'd rather see Python 2.5 finished, so it just works. And I'd rather see peace on Earth and goodwill among men than _either_ Python 3 or your cherished finished 2.5 -- the comparison and implied tradeoff make about as much sense as yours. Insofar as Python has an organization, it's not adequately managing extension modules. Each extension module has its own infrastructure, with its own build procedures, its own bug list, and its own maintainers. There's not even an archive. Unlike CPAN, Cheese Shop is just a directory of URLs. Take a look at how Perl does it. Here are the instructions on how to contribute to CPAN: http://www.cpan.org/modules/04pause.html There's a way to get your module into the system, a standardized format, build, and installation procedure, and an archive which is mirrored. There's a common bug reporting system. Modules abandoned by their original developers are not lost, and can be adopted by someone else. Python doesn't have any of this. And that's far more of a problem than Python 3.x. John Nagle -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All serious languages are turing-complete. So can we put away with this non-sense argument right away, please? Actually the so called total languages aren't Turing-complete. I think Coq is an example: every Coq function must return a value. So Coq doesn't have any way to write an infinite loop, because that would allow writing functions that fail to return. So there is no halting program in Coq (every Coq program halts), which means Coq is not Turing-complete. That allows Coq to generate code about which it can make all kinds of guarantees that most languages can't (not simply that the programs halt but that they actually fulfill their computational specifications), so it's being used in various high-assurance applications, though usually to write just the most critical parts of a program, not the entire program. Of course it's a matter of semantics but in some meaningful ways, I'd say Coq is a more serious language than Python. Here is a famous early paper explaining why Turing-completeness isn't all it's cracked up to be: http://sblp2004.ic.uff.br/papers/turner.pdf This paper shows some of the advantages of the total approach. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Sep 28, 2:49 am, Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TheFlyingDutchman wrote: The fact that you compare and criticise the simple annotations like static or abstract with the much more powerful decorator concept shows that, despite being the maintainer of a soon-to-be-ruling-the-python-world Python 3 fork, lack understanding of even the most basic language features. Which isn't exactly news.[1] Don't you mean lack appreciation for the non-basic language features? static, class and abstract are basic language features that I appreciate. decorators have been in Python for only a small part of its existence, they aren't in the vast majority of languages (if any other language even has them) which means people write all kinds of software without them. Or rather, most of the software ever written didn't use decorators. Doesn't sound basic at all. People did write all kinds of software in Assembler. And large portions of these people complained about every feature that some new language introduced. All serious languages are turing-complete. So can we put away with this non-sense argument right away, please? You said it was a most basic language feature. I still haven't heard anything that leads me to believe that statement is correct. What languages implemented decorators as a most basic language feature? Python didn't have them for over a decade so it doesn't qualify. Maybe you should start using python more and _then_ start discussions about it's features, when you have good grounds and can provide viable alternatives? But I guess that's a wish that won't be granted static and abstract keywords would seem to be very viable alternatives. Viable enough that several language designers used them. As I said - you don't get it. The decorators (in conjunction with the descriptor protocol - ever heard of that?) are very powerful yet lead as an artifact to simple, declarative implementations of features you like, namely static and abstract methods. You said I had to provide a viable alternative. I did that. I haven't heard of the descriptor protocol. One of the problems with getting decorators is that they are not in older books at all and newer books like Beginning Python from Novice to Professional (c) 2005 Magnus Lie Hetland, that I own, devote almost nothing to them. Out of 640 pages they are only mentioned in one paragraph that is in a section titled Static Methods and Class Methods,(and followed by a class example with @staticmethod and @classmethod). So it seems like Magnus Lie Hetland didn't think they were very important and he had Professional in his book title. And as you seem being so reluctant to let new features creep into the language, the introduction of new keywords you like? I'm not against additions on principle. Besides, those 'several language designers' seem to think that the introduction of keywords isn't enough, but a general purpose annotation scheme seems to be viable - or how do you explain e.g. JDK 1.5 Annotations? I certainly wouldn't call them a basic language feature. Java 1.0 came out in January 1996, Java 1.5 in September 2004. It doesn't appear that the language designer of Java, James Gosling, is still at the wheel or BDFL. But yes, Java is showing signs of complexity creep. You'll be happy to know that I really dislike the C++ template syntax and Java has decided to add something similar. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:42:49 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote: Which of the common languages have higher order functions and what is the syntax? C, C++, Pascal, Perl, PHP, Ruby have them. And of course the functional languages, most notably Lisp and Scheme as you asked for common languages. Don't know if C#'s delegates qualify. Ciao, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Sep 28, 10:01 am, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:42:49 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote: Which of the common languages have higher order functions and what is the syntax? C, C++, Pascal, Perl, PHP, Ruby have them. And of course the functional languages, most notably Lisp and Scheme as you asked for common languages. Don't know if C#'s delegates qualify. Ciao, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch What is the syntax of a higher order function in C, C++ and Pascal? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
You said it was a most basic language feature. I still haven't heard anything that leads me to believe that statement is correct. What languages implemented decorators as a most basic language feature? I was talking about Python, the programming language that is discussed in this NG. Python didn't have them for over a decade so it doesn't qualify. Says who? For further comments, see below. Maybe you should start using python more and _then_ start discussions about it's features, when you have good grounds and can provide viable alternatives? But I guess that's a wish that won't be granted static and abstract keywords would seem to be very viable alternatives. Viable enough that several language designers used them. As I said - you don't get it. The decorators (in conjunction with the descriptor protocol - ever heard of that?) are very powerful yet lead as an artifact to simple, declarative implementations of features you like, namely static and abstract methods. You said I had to provide a viable alternative. I did that. I haven't heard of the descriptor protocol. Where did you do provide that alternative? One of the problems with getting decorators is that they are not in older books at all and newer books like Beginning Python from Novice to Professional (c) 2005 Magnus Lie Hetland, that I own, devote almost nothing to them. Out of 640 pages they are only mentioned in one paragraph that is in a section titled Static Methods and Class Methods,(and followed by a class example with @staticmethod and @classmethod). So it seems like Magnus Lie Hetland didn't think they were very important and he had Professional in his book title. I consider core features of a language the features that are part of the specification and implementation. Neither do I care if there is anecdotal evidence of prior usage in other languages, nor who or who not thinks they are important enough to be dealt with in a book. And above all, I don't consider the time things have been around _without_ any feature as proof of their irrelevance - or do you consider cars being not core to western culture because they only have been around about 100 years, whereas horses have been there for thousands of years? Happy riding, cowboy! Python 2.4 has been released in 2003, btw - so decorators are around for 4 years now. So unless you come up with a definition of core feature of a language that someone respectable in the CS-community wrote that features time being around or random book authors consider worthy or persons lacking the motivation to really dig into do finally get it, I consider your definition worthless. Agreed? And as you seem being so reluctant to let new features creep into the language, the introduction of new keywords you like? I'm not against additions on principle. Besides, those 'several language designers' seem to think that the introduction of keywords isn't enough, but a general purpose annotation scheme seems to be viable - or how do you explain e.g. JDK 1.5 Annotations? I certainly wouldn't call them a basic language feature. Java 1.0 came out in January 1996, Java 1.5 in September 2004. It doesn't appear that the language designer of Java, James Gosling, is still at the wheel or BDFL. But yes, Java is showing signs of complexity creep. You'll be happy to know that I really dislike the C++ template syntax and Java has decided to add something similar. Again, your anecdotal language feature definition is nonsense. By the way, considering generics and C++-templates as something similar shows the inclined beholder that there are other languages out there you don't really understand. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 09:17:30PM -0400, Steve Holden wrote: So what we need is a poll on what the questions should be. I *love* c.l.py. I will switch as soon as Debian has all the tools for an easy conversion available, and Python 3000 has reached the default release status. e -- Egbert Bouwman - Keizersgracht 197 II - 1016 DS Amsterdam - 020 6257991 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
The fact that you compare and criticise the simple annotations like static or abstract with the much more powerful decorator concept shows that, despite being the maintainer of a soon-to-be-ruling-the-python-world Python 3 fork, lack understanding of even the most basic language features. Which isn't exactly news.[1] Don't you mean lack appreciation for the non-basic language features? static, class and abstract are basic language features that I appreciate. decorators have been in Python for only a small part of its existence, they aren't in the vast majority of languages (if any other language even has them) which means people write all kinds of software without them. Or rather, most of the software ever written didn't use decorators. Doesn't sound basic at all. Maybe you should start using python more and _then_ start discussions about it's features, when you have good grounds and can provide viable alternatives? But I guess that's a wish that won't be granted static and abstract keywords would seem to be very viable alternatives. Viable enough that several language designers used them. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Sep 27, 2007, at 8:17 PM, Steve Holden wrote: James Stroud wrote: Steve Holden wrote: I wondered if a straw poll could get some idea of readers' thoughts about when they will be migrating to 3.0 on, so I used the new widget on Blogger to add a poll for that. I'd appreciate if if you would go to http://holdenweb.blogspot.com/ and register your vote on your intended migration timescale. Thanks! I'm going to abstain voting until 'public beta + about 1 year' is a choice. Richard Jones wrote: I'll use the no plans response for my actual no simple answer real response. So what we need is a poll on what the questions should be. I *love* c.l.py. Does professional vs. personal use matter here? What if I plan to switch in the morning or at midnight on the first solstice after the second alpha release? Is Mercury or Venus in retrograde? These things matter... :) Erik Jones Software Developer | Emma® [EMAIL PROTECTED] 800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888 615.292.0777 (fax) Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate market in style. Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
TheFlyingDutchman wrote: On Sep 28, 10:01 am, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:42:49 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote: Which of the common languages have higher order functions and what is the syntax? C, C++, Pascal, Perl, PHP, Ruby have them. And of course the functional languages, most notably Lisp and Scheme as you asked for common languages. Don't know if C#'s delegates qualify. Ciao, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch What is the syntax of a higher order function in C, C++ and Pascal? This is like listening to a four-year-old torment its parents with incessant questions. Do you *have* to ask every question that pops into your mind? regards Steve -- Steve Holden+1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Sorry, the dog ate my .sigline -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
Ian Dickinson wrote: Never would look like a good time scale to me given that a lot of the stuff I use is being ripped out Has any one actually converted any real code or significant bits of code using the 3.0 converter (in the sandbox somewhere), and if so what kinds of things actually failed? Nothing I've read about 3.0 has alarmed me that much yet, but I've not yet actually tried converting code for it (except a few extension modules, which at least _compiled_ just fine against 3.0). - Stephan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Sep 28, 9:30 am, Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You said it was a most basic language feature. I still haven't heard anything that leads me to believe that statement is correct. What languages implemented decorators as a most basic language feature? I was talking about Python, the programming language that is discussed in this NG Python didn't have them for over a decade so it doesn't qualify. Says who? For further comments, see below. I had the impression you were saying it was a basic language feature of most languages. In any event Guido Van Rossum didn't include them for over a decade. If he felt they were a basic language feature it seems that he would have included them in 1991. Maybe you should start using python more and _then_ start discussions about it's features, when you have good grounds and can provide viable alternatives? But I guess that's a wish that won't be granted static and abstract keywords would seem to be very viable alternatives. Viable enough that several language designers used them. As I said - you don't get it. The decorators (in conjunction with the descriptor protocol - ever heard of that?) are very powerful yet lead as an artifact to simple, declarative implementations of features you like, namely static and abstract methods. You said I had to provide a viable alternative. I did that. I haven't heard of the descriptor protocol. Where did you do provide that alternative? def static def abstract I was not providing an alternative for decorators. One of the problems with getting decorators is that they are not in older books at all and newer books like Beginning Python from Novice to Professional (c) 2005 Magnus Lie Hetland, that I own, devote almost nothing to them. Out of 640 pages they are only mentioned in one paragraph that is in a section titled Static Methods and Class Methods,(and followed by a class example with @staticmethod and @classmethod). So it seems like Magnus Lie Hetland didn't think they were very important and he had Professional in his book title. I consider core features of a language the features that are part of the specification and implementation. Neither do I care if there is anecdotal evidence of prior usage in other languages, nor who or who not thinks they are important enough to be dealt with in a book. By that definition isn't anything that is part of a language a core feature? Weren't we talking about basic features? And above all, I don't consider the time things have been around _without_ any feature as proof of their irrelevance - or do you consider cars being not core to western culture because they only have been around about 100 years, whereas horses have been there for thousands of years? Happy riding, cowboy! A relevant analogy would talk about a feature of cars that was not on them in the beginning but has been added later and whether it was a basic (or now, core) feature. Your definition of core feature given above means that anything on a car when it comes out of the factory is a core feature. Python 2.4 has been released in 2003, btw - so decorators are around for 4 years now. So unless you come up with a definition of core feature of a language that someone respectable in the CS-community wrote that features time being around or random book authors consider worthy or persons lacking the motivation to really dig into do finally get it, I consider your definition worthless. Agreed? Since you defined a core feature (haven't seen your definition of a basic feature) as anything in the specification or implementation, I agree that it makes sense for you to disregard anything that limits core features to something less than everything. Besides, those 'several language designers' seem to think that the introduction of keywords isn't enough, but a general purpose annotation scheme seems to be viable - or how do you explain e.g. JDK 1.5 Annotations? I certainly wouldn't call them a basic language feature. Java 1.0 came out in January 1996, Java 1.5 in September 2004. It doesn't appear that the language designer of Java, James Gosling, is still at the wheel or BDFL. But yes, Java is showing signs of complexity creep. You'll be happy to know that I really dislike the C++ template syntax and Java has decided to add something similar. Again, your anecdotal language feature definition is nonsense. By the way, considering generics and C++-templates as something similar shows the inclined beholder that there are other languages out there you don't really understand. For me understanding is all I can hope to attain. Really understanding is something I must yield to the corps d'elite. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
TheFlyingDutchman wrote: The fact that you compare and criticise the simple annotations like static or abstract with the much more powerful decorator concept shows that, despite being the maintainer of a soon-to-be-ruling-the-python-world Python 3 fork, lack understanding of even the most basic language features. Which isn't exactly news.[1] Don't you mean lack appreciation for the non-basic language features? static, class and abstract are basic language features that I appreciate. decorators have been in Python for only a small part of its existence, they aren't in the vast majority of languages (if any other language even has them) which means people write all kinds of software without them. Or rather, most of the software ever written didn't use decorators. Doesn't sound basic at all. People did write all kinds of software in Assembler. And large portions of these people complained about every feature that some new language introduced. All serious languages are turing-complete. So can we put away with this non-sense argument right away, please? Maybe you should start using python more and _then_ start discussions about it's features, when you have good grounds and can provide viable alternatives? But I guess that's a wish that won't be granted static and abstract keywords would seem to be very viable alternatives. Viable enough that several language designers used them. As I said - you don't get it. The decorators (in conjunction with the descriptor protocol - ever heard of that?) are very powerful yet lead as an artifact to simple, declarative implementations of features you like, namely static and abstract methods. And as you seem being so reluctant to let new features creep into the language, the introduction of new keywords you like? Besides, those 'several language designers' seem to think that the introduction of keywords isn't enough, but a general purpose annotation scheme seems to be viable - or how do you explain e.g. JDK 1.5 Annotations? Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On 9/28/07, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 28, 2:49 am, Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TheFlyingDutchman wrote: All serious languages are turing-complete. So can we put away with this non-sense argument right away, please? You said it was a most basic language feature. I still haven't heard anything that leads me to believe that statement is correct. What languages implemented decorators as a most basic language feature? Python didn't have them for over a decade so it doesn't qualify. Decorators are syntax sugar for higher order functions. Higher order functions are a both a basic and a fundamental language feature, and exist in many languages. The fact that you don't know this just proves, once again, that you like to talk more than you like to learn. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
Decorators are syntax sugar for higher order functions. Higher order functions are a both a basic and a fundamental language feature, and exist in many languages. The fact that you don't know this just proves, once again, that you like to talk more than you like to learn. Which of the common languages have higher order functions and what is the syntax? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
Paul Rubin wrote: Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All serious languages are turing-complete. So can we put away with this non-sense argument right away, please? Actually the so called total languages aren't Turing-complete. I think Coq is an example: every Coq function must return a value. So snip/ Please, Paul. There is no need to hijack every thread to show off your mad functional and wicked staticly typed programming language skillz. We had that discussion at a different time, and you very well know that with serious I didn't mean can be used to program rockets that don't fall of the earth, but that aren't toy-languages used to solve real-world problems. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On 9/28/07, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 28, 10:57 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is like listening to a four-year-old torment its parents with incessant questions. Do you *have* to ask every question that pops into your mind? In this case I asked it as part of the original question and it was ignored. I have programmed in C and C++ and a little Pascal many years ago. I don't remember anything about Higher Order Functions and would like to see exactly how you do it and to verify the contention. You could just google for it. Just in case your connection to google or other similar search engines has been disabled for some reason, here are some links. Try for instance http://okmij.org/ftp/c++-digest/Lambda-CPP-more.html#Ex3 or http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~yannis/fc++/ or http://www.boost.org/libs/mpl/doc/tutorial/higher-order.html francesco -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:04:39 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] In this case I asked it as part of the original question and it was ignored. I have programmed in C and C++ and a little Pascal many years ago. I don't remember anything about Higher Order Functions and would like to see exactly how you do it and to verify the contention. Perhaps you could do a bit of independent research. Then your messages to the group could contain more thoughtful questions and responses. Jean-Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Sep 28, 10:57 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TheFlyingDutchman wrote: On Sep 28, 10:01 am, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:42:49 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote: Which of the common languages have higher order functions and what is the syntax? C, C++, Pascal, Perl, PHP, Ruby have them. And of course the functional languages, most notably Lisp and Scheme as you asked for common languages. Don't know if C#'s delegates qualify. Ciao, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch What is the syntax of a higher order function in C, C++ and Pascal? This is like listening to a four-year-old torment its parents with incessant questions. Do you *have* to ask every question that pops into your mind? In this case I asked it as part of the original question and it was ignored. I have programmed in C and C++ and a little Pascal many years ago. I don't remember anything about Higher Order Functions and would like to see exactly how you do it and to verify the contention. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is the syntax of a higher order function in C, C++ and Pascal? void qsort(int *array, int length, int width, int (*compare)()); is a C library example. I think we'd describe qsort as a HOF since one of its arguments (the comparison routine) is a function. We wouldn't say that C has first class functions like Python or Scheme does, since you can't create new functions at runtime. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Sep 28, 11:21 am, Francesco Guerrieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/28/07, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 28, 10:57 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is like listening to a four-year-old torment its parents with incessant questions. Do you *have* to ask every question that pops into your mind? In this case I asked it as part of the original question and it was ignored. I have programmed in C and C++ and a little Pascal many years ago. I don't remember anything about Higher Order Functions and would like to see exactly how you do it and to verify the contention. You could just google for it. Just in case your connection to google or other similar search engines has been disabled for some reason, here are some links. Try for instance http://okmij.org/ftp/c++-digest/Lambda-CPP-more.html#Ex3 or http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~yannis/fc++/ or http://www.boost.org/libs/mpl/doc/tutorial/higher-order.html Correct me if I am wrong, but none of those examples showed something in C++ similar to a decorator in Python - that is, unique syntax in the language for implementing a Higher Order Function. One thing I will say about those examples is that they make Python decorators look sweet! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Sep 28, 11:16 am, Jean-Paul Calderone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:04:39 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] In this case I asked it as part of the original question and it was ignored. I have programmed in C and C++ and a little Pascal many years ago. I don't remember anything about Higher Order Functions and would like to see exactly how you do it and to verify the contention. Perhaps you could do a bit of independent research. Then your messages to the group could contain more thoughtful questions and responses. But you miss the fact that I am providing value to the group by providing unthoughtful questions and unthoughtful responses. By having most of the pocket protectors being thrown at me, I provide a diversion that allows others to speak more freely and without fear of reproach. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Sep 28, 11:16 am, Jean-Paul Calderone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:04:39 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] In this case I asked it as part of the original question and it was ignored. I have programmed in C and C++ and a little Pascal many years ago. I don't remember anything about Higher Order Functions and would like to see exactly how you do it and to verify the contention. Perhaps you could do a bit of independent research. Then your messages to the group could contain more thoughtful questions and responses. But you miss the fact that I am providing value to the group by providing unthoughtful questions and unthoughtful responses. By having most of the pocket protectors being thrown at me, I provide a diversion that allows others to speak more freely and without fear of reproach. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
TheFlyingDutchman wrote: On Sep 28, 11:16 am, Jean-Paul Calderone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:04:39 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] In this case I asked it as part of the original question and it was ignored. I have programmed in C and C++ and a little Pascal many years ago. I don't remember anything about Higher Order Functions and would like to see exactly how you do it and to verify the contention. Perhaps you could do a bit of independent research. Then your messages to the group could contain more thoughtful questions and responses. But you miss the fact that I am providing value to the group by providing unthoughtful questions and unthoughtful responses. By having most of the pocket protectors being thrown at me, I provide a diversion that allows others to speak more freely and without fear of reproach. Or bind resources of these pocket protectors that otherwise would lead to answers for people that do seek enlightment... Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
TheFlyingDutchman wrote: On Sep 28, 11:16 am, Jean-Paul Calderone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:04:39 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] In this case I asked it as part of the original question and it was ignored. I have programmed in C and C++ and a little Pascal many years ago. I don't remember anything about Higher Order Functions and would like to see exactly how you do it and to verify the contention. Perhaps you could do a bit of independent research. Then your messages to the group could contain more thoughtful questions and responses. But you miss the fact that I am providing value to the group by providing unthoughtful questions and unthoughtful responses. By having most of the pocket protectors being thrown at me, I provide a diversion that allows others to speak more freely and without fear of reproach. It's the knives and hand grenades you want to worry about. We are a very friendly and welcoming group, but we do have our limits. You're fast approaching 100% on my trollometer. regards Steve -- Steve Holden+1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Sorry, the dog ate my .sigline -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
Or bind resources of these pocket protectors that otherwise would lead to answers for people that do seek enlightment... I don't think it would be correct to characterize my posts as not seeking enlightenment. I do also happen to voice my opinion which seems appropriate since this can be characterized as a discussion group. It theoretically is possible for a discussion group to tolerate opinions that diverge from the majority. One issue I have with this group and that I encountered many years ago in the Perl group is that there is no separate group comp.lang.python.beginner where you can ask questions without getting hit with RTFM! and the like. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
TheFlyingDutchman wrote: Or bind resources of these pocket protectors that otherwise would lead to answers for people that do seek enlightment... I don't think it would be correct to characterize my posts as not seeking enlightenment. I do also happen to voice my opinion which seems appropriate since this can be characterized as a discussion group. It theoretically is possible for a discussion group to tolerate opinions that diverge from the majority. I would characterize I like how someone here characterized decorators - those silly @ things. They remind me of Perl. Not adding keywords for abstract and static is like Perl not adding a keyword for class. not as seeking enlightenment, but as pure trolling. Disqualifying features without actually understanding them as silly certainly doesn't lie on one of the many path's to enlightenment known man - which to my knowledge usually require more humble approaches One issue I have with this group and that I encountered many years ago in the Perl group is that there is no separate group comp.lang.python.beginner where you can ask questions without getting hit with RTFM! and the like. And I wish people that have no clue about the deeper workings of Python wouldn't insist on commenting on these in inappropriate ways as above, but instead try and _understand_ them before debuking them or suggesting changes. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Sep 28, 3:29 pm, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One issue I have with this group and that I encountered many years ago in the Perl group is that there is no separate group comp.lang.python.beginner where you can ask questions without getting hit with RTFM! and the like. Which shows once again that you're trying to break the world record of being wrong in as many sentences as possible: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor You would do yourself (and others) a favor by migrating there for a few weeks or months. George -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
George Sakkis wrote: On Sep 28, 3:29 pm, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One issue I have with this group and that I encountered many years ago in the Perl group is that there is no separate group comp.lang.python.beginner where you can ask questions without getting hit with RTFM! and the like. Which shows once again that you're trying to break the world record of being wrong in as many sentences as possible: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor You would do yourself (and others) a favor by migrating there for a few weeks or months. George Hopefully with a side dish of alt.attitude.adjustment. It's not that we don't want you. it's just that you don't seem to realize how annoying you can be. n the other hand, if you *do* realize how annoying you can be then please leave now and never come back ;-) regards Steve -- Steve Holden+1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Sorry, the dog ate my .sigline -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Sep 28, 11:53 am, John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alex Martelli wrote: John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TheFlyingDutchman wrote: It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than what it adds. What are the additions that people find the most compelling? I'd rather see Python 2.5 finished, so it just works. And I'd rather see peace on Earth and goodwill among men than _either_ Python 3 or your cherished finished 2.5 -- the comparison and implied tradeoff make about as much sense as yours. Insofar as Python has an organization, it's not adequately managing extension modules. Each extension module has its own infrastructure, with its own build procedures, its own bug list, and its own maintainers. There's not even an archive. Unlike CPAN, Cheese Shop is just a directory of URLs. Take a look at how Perl does it. Here are the instructions on how to contribute to CPAN: http://www.cpan.org/modules/04pause.html There's a way to get your module into the system, a standardized format, build, and installation procedure, and an archive which is mirrored. There's a common bug reporting system. Modules abandoned by their original developers are not lost, and can be adopted by someone else. Python doesn't have any of this. And that's far more of a problem than Python 3.x. Does Perl support extension modules, and if so, are they so prevalent as in Python ? Either case, bringing up CPAN is moot in this case; nothing can force an external open source contributor to maintain or provide binaries for his packages. How is this a problem of the *language* ? George -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Sep 28, 12:34 pm, Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TheFlyingDutchman wrote: Or bind resources of these pocket protectors that otherwise would lead to answers for people that do seek enlightment... I don't think it would be correct to characterize my posts as not seeking enlightenment. I do also happen to voice my opinion which seems appropriate since this can be characterized as a discussion group. It theoretically is possible for a discussion group to tolerate opinions that diverge from the majority. I would characterize I like how someone here characterized decorators - those silly @ things. They remind me of Perl. Not adding keywords for abstract and static is like Perl not adding a keyword for class. not as seeking enlightenment, but as pure trolling. Disqualifying features without actually understanding them as silly certainly doesn't lie on one of the many path's to enlightenment known man - which to my knowledge usually require more humble approaches Some posts seek enlightenment, some voice opinions. Opinions aren't always voiced humbly. I don't think you will have to look far for examples of people other than myself not expressing opinions humbly. One issue I have with this group and that I encountered many years ago in the Perl group is that there is no separate group comp.lang.python.beginner where you can ask questions without getting hit with RTFM! and the like. And I wish people that have no clue about the deeper workings of Python wouldn't insist on commenting on these in inappropriate ways as above, but instead try and _understand_ them before debunking them or suggesting changes. I will grant you that silly is too strong a word to use in a group of ardent users but I think it should be completely valid to gripe about the syntax at least once. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 13:00 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote: Being in a land where every nit can be picked, I am surprised that you offered up a mailing list when I was asking for a newsgroup. nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.tutor -- Carsten Haese http://informixdb.sourceforge.net -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Sep 28, 12:45 pm, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 28, 3:29 pm, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One issue I have with this group and that I encountered many years ago in the Perl group is that there is no separate group comp.lang.python.beginner where you can ask questions without getting hit with RTFM! and the like. Which shows once again that you're trying to break the world record of being wrong in as many sentences as possible: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor You would do yourself (and others) a favor by migrating there for a few weeks or months. George Being in a land where every nit can be picked, I am surprised that you offered up a mailing list when I was asking for a newsgroup. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
TheFlyingDutchman wrote: On Sep 28, 12:45 pm, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 28, 3:29 pm, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One issue I have with this group and that I encountered many years ago in the Perl group is that there is no separate group comp.lang.python.beginner where you can ask questions without getting hit with RTFM! and the like. Which shows once again that you're trying to break the world record of being wrong in as many sentences as possible: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor You would do yourself (and others) a favor by migrating there for a few weeks or months. George Being in a land where every nit can be picked, I am surprised that you offered up a mailing list when I was asking for a newsgroup. That's because the tutor list doesn't offer a newsgroup. He was probably just trying to get rid of you. Now at 98.75% ... regards Steve -- Steve Holden+1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Sorry, the dog ate my .sigline -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
Steve Holden wrote: TheFlyingDutchman wrote: On Sep 28, 10:01 am, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:42:49 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote: Which of the common languages have higher order functions and what is the syntax? C, C++, Pascal, Perl, PHP, Ruby have them. And of course the functional languages, most notably Lisp and Scheme as you asked for common languages. Don't know if C#'s delegates qualify. Ciao, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch What is the syntax of a higher order function in C, C++ and Pascal? This is like listening to a four-year-old torment its parents with incessant questions. Do you *have* to ask every question that pops into your mind? regards Steve Tut Tut! A reasonable question is being asked. Colin W. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On 28 Sep., 17:53, John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alex Martelli wrote: John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TheFlyingDutchman wrote: It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than what it adds. What are the additions that people find the most compelling? I'd rather see Python 2.5 finished, so it just works. And I'd rather see peace on Earth and goodwill among men than _either_ Python 3 or your cherished finished 2.5 -- the comparison and implied tradeoff make about as much sense as yours. Insofar as Python has an organization, it's not adequately managing extension modules. Each extension module has its own infrastructure, with its own build procedures, its own bug list, and its own maintainers. There's not even an archive. Unlike CPAN, Cheese Shop is just a directory of URLs. John, can't you please piss off? Thanks, Kay -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
TheFlyingDutchman wrote: Or bind resources of these pocket protectors that otherwise would lead to answers for people that do seek enlightment... I don't think it would be correct to characterize my posts as not seeking enlightenment. I do also happen to voice my opinion which seems appropriate since this can be characterized as a discussion group. It theoretically is possible for a discussion group to tolerate opinions that diverge from the majority. +1 One issue I have with this group and that I encountered many years ago in the Perl group is that there is no separate group comp.lang.python.beginner where you can ask questions without getting hit with RTFM! and the like. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Sep 28, 1:09 pm, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's because the tutor list doesn't offer a newsgroup. He was probably just trying to get rid of you. Now at 98.75% ... Not sure if that's the reading on your trollmeter or on the meter that measures what percentage of your posts you get huffy. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On Sep 28, 2007, at 3:00 PM, TheFlyingDutchman wrote: On Sep 28, 12:45 pm, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 28, 3:29 pm, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One issue I have with this group and that I encountered many years ago in the Perl group is that there is no separate group comp.lang.python.beginner where you can ask questions without getting hit with RTFM! and the like. Which shows once again that you're trying to break the world record of being wrong in as many sentences as possible: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor You would do yourself (and others) a favor by migrating there for a few weeks or months. George Being in a land where every nit can be picked, I am surprised that you offered up a mailing list when I was asking for a newsgroup. I'm usually pretty quiet on this list. That's what I find is the best way to participate. However, I'm going to have to speak up and point out that that response is exactly the type of comment and/or reasoning that everyone here is trying to explain to you. The resources are available for you to educate yourself. Semantic arguments such as this are, at best, at a junior high level. You are completely free to ask any question (about Python) you want here -- just don't argue with the people giving you the answers. And, to address the actual content of that response: nobody, online or off, in newsgroups or on mailing lists, likes a nitpick. So, please, quit. I'd prefer you didn't leave and, instead, decided to actually, actively get along with the others here. I think some of the question you've begun threads with have been both good and valid. It's just that you need some work on your e-people skills, man. Erik Jones Software Developer | Emma® [EMAIL PROTECTED] 800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888 615.292.0777 (fax) Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate market in style. Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
Kay Schluehr wrote:
On 28 Sep., 17:53, John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex Martelli wrote:
John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than
what it adds.
What are the additions that people find the most compelling?
I'd rather see Python 2.5 finished, so it just works.
And I'd rather see peace on Earth and goodwill among men than _either_
Python 3 or your cherished finished 2.5 -- the comparison and implied
tradeoff make about as much sense as yours.
Insofar as Python has an organization, it's not adequately managing
extension modules. Each extension module has its own infrastructure,
with its own build procedures, its own bug list, and its own maintainers.
There's not even an archive. Unlike CPAN, Cheese Shop is just a directory of
URLs.
John, can't you please piss off?
Thanks, Kay
Oops! Let's get back to goodwill and peace to all men, can we -
including {Flying Dutch,wo}men?
crabbi-ly y'rs - steve
--
Steve Holden+1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden
Sorry, the dog ate my .sigline
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
John Nagle wrote: Insofar as Python has an organization, it's not adequately managing extension modules. Each extension module has its own infrastructure, with its own build procedures, its own bug list, and its own maintainers. There's not even an archive. Unlike CPAN, Cheese Shop is just a directory of URLs. Ah, it's not usenet without someone speaking from ignorance! :) Richard -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
George Sakkis wrote: On Sep 28, 11:53 am, John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alex Martelli wrote: John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TheFlyingDutchman wrote: It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than what it adds. What are the additions that people find the most compelling? I'd rather see Python 2.5 finished, so it just works. And I'd rather see peace on Earth and goodwill among men than _either_ Python 3 or your cherished finished 2.5 -- the comparison and implied tradeoff make about as much sense as yours. Insofar as Python has an organization, it's not adequately managing extension modules. Each extension module has its own infrastructure, with its own build procedures, its own bug list, and its own maintainers. There's not even an archive. Unlike CPAN, Cheese Shop is just a directory of URLs. Take a look at how Perl does it. Here are the instructions on how to contribute to CPAN: http://www.cpan.org/modules/04pause.html There's a way to get your module into the system, a standardized format, build, and installation procedure, and an archive which is mirrored. There's a common bug reporting system. Modules abandoned by their original developers are not lost, and can be adopted by someone else. Python doesn't have any of this. And that's far more of a problem than Python 3.x. Does Perl support extension modules, and if so, are they so prevalent as in Python ? Yes, Perl supports non-Perl extension modules. But most of the important ones are either maintained as part of the standard Perl distribution, or supported by the organization that provides whatever they link to. For example, MySQL AB supports a Perl binding to MySQL, but not a Python binding. John Nagle -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
Steve Holden wrote: I wondered if a straw poll could get some idea of readers' thoughts about when they will be migrating to 3.0 on, so I used the new widget on Blogger to add a poll for that. I'd appreciate if if you would go to http://holdenweb.blogspot.com/ and register your vote on your intended migration timescale. Thanks! I'm going to abstain voting until 'public beta + about 1 year' is a choice. James -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
Steve Holden wrote: I wondered if a straw poll could get some idea of readers' thoughts about when they will be migrating to 3.0 on, so I used the new widget on Blogger to add a poll for that. I'd appreciate if if you would go to http://holdenweb.blogspot.com/ and register your vote on your intended migration timescale. I'll use the no plans response for my actual no simple answer real response. Richard -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So what we need is a poll on what the questions should be. I *love* c.l.py. One of the offered answers to the current question should be never. That is, I'm hoping to skip 3.0 and switch directly to PyPy. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than what it adds. What are the additions that people find the most compelling? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
James Stroud wrote: Steve Holden wrote: I wondered if a straw poll could get some idea of readers' thoughts about when they will be migrating to 3.0 on, so I used the new widget on Blogger to add a poll for that. I'd appreciate if if you would go to http://holdenweb.blogspot.com/ and register your vote on your intended migration timescale. Thanks! I'm going to abstain voting until 'public beta + about 1 year' is a choice. Richard Jones wrote: I'll use the no plans response for my actual no simple answer real response. So what we need is a poll on what the questions should be. I *love* c.l.py. regards Steve -- Steve Holden+1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Sorry, the dog ate my .sigline -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wondered if a straw poll could get some idea of readers' thoughts about when they will be migrating to 3.0 on, so I used the new widget on Blogger to add a poll for that. I'd appreciate if if you would go to http://holdenweb.blogspot.com/ and register your vote on your intended migration timescale. Does this require JavaScript? If yes, count me as another no vote on your survey. ;-) -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/ The best way to get information on Usenet is not to ask a question, but to post the wrong information. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
- Abstract Base Classes URL:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3119/ I like how someone here characterized decorators - those silly @ things. They remind me of Perl. Not adding keywords for abstract and static is like Perl not adding a keyword for class. But I know all such additions are vigorously defended by the most ardent users of each language. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than what it adds. That's certainly the focus of an explicitly backward-incompatible upgrade, yes. What are the additions that people find the most compelling? Most of the additions that will go into 2.6 are doing so because they'll appear in 3.0. That's a benefit: anything from 3.0 that makes sense to add to 2.6 will go in; the rest of 3.0's changes are mostly backwards-incompatible (i.e. removals and conflicting changes). I find the following compelling: - 'str' becomes Unicode type, 'int' becomes unified-int-and-long type URL:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3100/ - Consistent, unambiguous integer literal syntax URL:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3127/ and the 'bytes' type for non-text strings URL:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3112/ - Default source encoding is UTF-8 URL:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3120/ and support for non-ASCII identifiers URL:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3131/ - Reorganisation of the standard library for consistency URL:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3108/ - Renaming raw_input to input, so 'input()' does the obvious thing URL:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3111/ - Clarification of 'raise' and 'except' semantics URL:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3109/, URL:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3110/ - Abstract Base Classes URL:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3119/ - everything that's being added to 2.6 :-) -- \ I bought a self learning record to learn Spanish. I turned it | `\on and went to sleep; the record got stuck. The next day I | _o__)could only stutter in Spanish. -- Steven Wright | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
Paul Rubin wrote: Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So what we need is a poll on what the questions should be. I *love* c.l.py. One of the offered answers to the current question should be never. That is, I'm hoping to skip 3.0 and switch directly to PyPy. Well, No current plans certainly includes never, even though it might not be quite assertive enough for your tastes. I hope that PyPy will eventually become good enough to overtake CPython as the preferred implementation - it certainly seems to have much greater optimization possibilities than CPython. regards Steve -- Steve Holden+1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Sorry, the dog ate my .sigline -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
On 9/27/07, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than what it adds. What are the additions that people find the most compelling? - dict.items(), .values() and .keys() returns dict views, and the .iter*() removal http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3106/ - the new super() http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3135/ etc... -- http://www.advogato.org/person/eopadoan/ Bookmarks: http://del.icio.us/edcrypt -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3.0 migration plans?
TheFlyingDutchman wrote: It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than what it adds. What are the additions that people find the most compelling? I'd rather see Python 2.5 finished, so it just works. All the major third-party libraries working and available with working builds for all major platforms. That working set of components in all the major distros used on servers. The major hosting companies having that up and running on their servers. Windows installers that install a collection of components that all play well together. That's what I mean by working. John Nagle -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
