Re: pygame and python 2.5
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 13, 2:24 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] This wouldn't be a simple project, but since there's a Windows buildbot for Python there's no reason why the same couldn't be done for extensions. I'll raise this with the PSF and see what the response is: then your carping will at least have had some positive effect ;-) Stick with it, and let's try to make things better. Ok. On a point of information, as it happens there's a Board meeting today and I have tabled the topic for discussion. Unfortunately I can't guarantee to attend the meeting (I am moving from the UK to the USA this week) but I will try to do so, and will attempt to report back to c.l.py within a week. Again, thanks for listening and trying to help. Even if nothing comes of it, at least we tried. I figure that sooner or later something has to be done and I'd rather see it done sooner. And no, I don't think I'm entitled to that. regards Steve Unfortunately the matter wasn't discussed due to my enforced absence from the 'Net and pressure of other business. But it's on my radar now and I will continue to progress it. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Blog of Note: http://holdenweb.blogspot.com See you at PyCon? http://us.pycon.org/TX2007 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 11, 4:24 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 11, 1:35?am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] By the way, on the sci.math newsgroup I promote Python every chance I get. One fellow thanked me profusely for recommending Python GMPY and asked for some help with a program he was having problems with. We worked it out fine but his problem made me suspect there may be more bugs in GMPY. What's my motivation for tracking them down? The satisfaction of a job well done? What's my motivation for acting as a director of the Python Software Foundation when I get accusations of irresponsibility? I apologize. But I hope you see how this appears from the outside, that the PSF doesn't give a rat's ass about Windows users with AOL addresses. Sure, that's wrong, but calling people who bring up these points whiny leeches doesn't do anything to dispell that notion. The AOL address is nothing to do with it. Accusations of whiny leeching tend to be made at people whose attitudes aren't constructive and who express their complaints in ways that seem to imply an expectation of some kind of right to dictate to open source developers. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to help maintain gmpy. Thanks, I try to help as much as I can. I'm a little sensitive about gmpy because without it, I would have to abandon Python and I don't want to abandon Python. This thread is starting to make me think that there's a case to be made for somehow providing supported build facilities for third-party extension modules. And the untouchables would greatly appreciate it. We're all Python users. There are no untouchables. But in the open source world you tend to have to take ownership of the problems that are important to you. Since you say you couldn't get the attention of gmpy's developers you might need to think about trying to join the team ... This wouldn't be a simple project, but since there's a Windows buildbot for Python there's no reason why the same couldn't be done for extensions. I'll raise this with the PSF and see what the response is: then your carping will at least have had some positive effect ;-) Stick with it, and let's try to make things better. Ok. On a point of information, as it happens there's a Board meeting today and I have tabled the topic for discussion. Unfortunately I can't guarantee to attend the meeting (I am moving from the UK to the USA this week) but I will try to do so, and will attempt to report back to c.l.py within a week. regards Steve PS: Couldn't send this yesterday, or attend the meeting, because BT Internet termined my DSL service early, mau God rot their profits and drive them into bankruptcy. I'll report back once I found out how the discussions went. -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Blog of Note: http://holdenweb.blogspot.com See you at PyCon? http://us.pycon.org/TX2007 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
On Feb 13, 2:24 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 11, 4:24 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 11, 1:35?am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] By the way, on the sci.math newsgroup I promote Python every chance I get. One fellow thanked me profusely for recommending Python GMPY and asked for some help with a program he was having problems with. We worked it out fine but his problem made me suspect there may be more bugs in GMPY. What's my motivation for tracking them down? The satisfaction of a job well done? What's my motivation for acting as a director of the Python Software Foundation when I get accusations of irresponsibility? I apologize. But I hope you see how this appears from the outside, that the PSF doesn't give a rat's ass about Windows users with AOL addresses. Sure, that's wrong, but calling people who bring up these points whiny leeches doesn't do anything to dispell that notion. The AOL address is nothing to do with it. Did you read the reply from Steven D'Arpano? He seems to think it has something to do with it. Accusations of whiny leeching tend to be made at people whose attitudes aren't constructive That's why I brought up the gmpy incident, to show that I don't have such an attitude. I even said I would pay for a compiler if that's what it took, which is more than what some open source developers are willing to do (and I don't blame them). and who express their complaints in ways that seem to imply an expectation of some kind of right to dictate to open source developers. I never meant to dictate what open source developers should do. But do they care about the implications of what they do? Remember, I got onto this thread replying to say that when an open source developer doesn't think past his own computer, then that's not the altruistic behaviour that others claim is the hallmark of open source. Sure, it rubs people the wrong way when I not so politely ask them to please look at the beam in their own eye before complaining about the mote in their neighbor's eye. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to help maintain gmpy. Thanks, I try to help as much as I can. I'm a little sensitive about gmpy because without it, I would have to abandon Python and I don't want to abandon Python. This thread is starting to make me think that there's a case to be made for somehow providing supported build facilities for third-party extension modules. And the untouchables would greatly appreciate it. We're all Python users. That's what I was hoping to hear. There are no untouchables. I'll ignore Steven D'Arpano's prattle. But in the open source world you tend to have to take ownership of the problems that are important to you. That's part of the trouble. I could never write gmpy from scratch, don't know enough. But I'm very good at understanding existing things. For 20 years I was a System Test Engineer and still consider myself a great debugger of both hardware and software. Since you say you couldn't get the attention of gmpy's developers you might need to think about trying to join the team ... There's a team? This wouldn't be a simple project, but since there's a Windows buildbot for Python there's no reason why the same couldn't be done for extensions. I'll raise this with the PSF and see what the response is: then your carping will at least have had some positive effect ;-) Stick with it, and let's try to make things better. Ok. On a point of information, as it happens there's a Board meeting today and I have tabled the topic for discussion. Unfortunately I can't guarantee to attend the meeting (I am moving from the UK to the USA this week) but I will try to do so, and will attempt to report back to c.l.py within a week. Again, thanks for listening and trying to help. Even if nothing comes of it, at least we tried. I figure that sooner or later something has to be done and I'd rather see it done sooner. And no, I don't think I'm entitled to that. regards Steve PS: Couldn't send this yesterday, or attend the meeting, because BT Internet termined my DSL service early, mau God rot their profits and drive them into bankruptcy. I'll report back once I found out how the discussions went. -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenwebhttp://del.icio.us/steve.holden Blog of Note: http://holdenweb.blogspot.com See you at PyCon?http://us.pycon.org/TX2007 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
On Feb 11, 1:35�am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 10, 4:07?pm, Ben Sizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 10, 6:31 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 9, 11:39?am, Ben Sizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hopefully in the future, some of those convoluted steps will be fixed, but that requires someone putting in the effort to do so. As is often the case with Python, and indeed many open source projects, the people who are knowledgeable enough to do such things usually don't need to do them, as their setup already works just fine. So you're saying the knowledgeable people's attitude is fuck everyone else as lomg as it's not MY problem? And you people complain about Microsoft. Am I one of those people? You don't exactly make it clear. I'm talking about the people who complain about Microsoft making the VC6 compiler no longer legally available and yet are so irresponsible that they use it for the latest release. I think you'll find those two sets are disjoint. But yes, there is a lot of well, it works for me going around. If you do that long enough, people stop complaining, so people wrongly assume there's no longer a problem. This is partly why Python has various warts on Windows and why the standard libraries are oddly biased, why configuring Linux almost always ends up involving hand- editing a .conf file, why the leading cross-platform multimedia library SDL still doesn't do hardware graphics acceleration a decade after such hardware became mainstream, and so on. However, the difference between the open-source people and Microsoft is the the open-source people aren't being paid by you for the use of their product, so they're not obligated in any way to help you. This argument has become tiresome. The Python community wants Python to be a big fish in the big pond. That's why they make Windows binaries available. ? I would suggest rather that the Python community (by which you apparently mean the developers) hope that the fruits of their labours will be used by as wide a cross-section of computer users as possible. The goals of open source projects are not those of commercial product developers: I and others wouldn't collectively put in thousands of unpaid hours a year to make a commercial product better and protect its intellectual property, for example. After all, they have already given freely and generously, and if they choose not to give more on top of that, it's really up to them. Right. Get people to commit and then abandon them. Nice. Anyone who committed to Python did so without being battered by a multi-million dollar advertising campaign. Multi-million dollar ad campaigns mean nothing to me. I committed to Python because it's a great language. I've dabbled in perl, Visual BASIC, UBASIC, REXX, Java, Scheme, C and C++ but Python is the one I use. The Python Software Foundation has only recently dipped its toes in the advocacy waters, with results that are still under evaluation. And the use of the Microsoft free VC6 SDK was never a part of the official means of producing Python or its extensions, it was a community-developed solution to the lack of availability of a free VS-compatible compilation system for extension modules. I agree that there are frustrations involved with maintaining extension modules on the Windows platform without having a copy of Visual Studio (of the correct version) available. One of the reasons Python still uses an outdated version of VS is to avoid forcing people to upgrade. Any such decision will have fallout. Such as anyone who tries to get in the game late. An update is in the works for those using more recent releases, That's good news, although the responsible thing to do was not relaease version 2.5 until such issues are resolved. but that won't help users who don't have access to Visual Studio. That can be solved by throwing money at the problem. But money doesn't help when the solution is on the far side of the moon. Yes, it's occasionally very frustrating to the rest of us, but that's life. As the Kurds are well aware. I really don't think you help your argument by trying to draw parallels between the problems of compiler non-availability and those of a population subject to random genocide. You missed the point of the analogy. The US government suggested to the oppressed tribes in Iraq that they should rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein at the end of the first Gulf War. And what did the US government do when they rose up? Nothing. They were left to twist in the wind. Try to keep things in perspective, please. See if you can see the similarity. I buy into Python. I spend a lot of effort developing a math library based on GMPY to use in my research. I discover a bug in GMPY and actually go to a lot of effort and solve it. But _I_ can't even use it because I've been left to
Re: pygame and python 2.5
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 11, 1:35�am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] After all, they have already given freely and generously, and if they choose not to give more on top of that, it's really up to them. Right. Get people to commit and then abandon them. Nice. Anyone who committed to Python did so without being battered by a multi-million dollar advertising campaign. Multi-million dollar ad campaigns mean nothing to me. I committed to Python because it's a great language. I've dabbled in perl, Visual BASIC, UBASIC, REXX, Java, Scheme, C and C++ but Python is the one I use. Yes, but your decision must surely have been an informed one, and there must surely be reasons why Python remains your choice. The Python Software Foundation has only recently dipped its toes in the advocacy waters, with results that are still under evaluation. And the use of the Microsoft free VC6 SDK was never a part of the official means of producing Python or its extensions, it was a community-developed solution to the lack of availability of a free VS-compatible compilation system for extension modules. I agree that there are frustrations involved with maintaining extension modules on the Windows platform without having a copy of Visual Studio (of the correct version) available. One of the reasons Python still uses an outdated version of VS is to avoid forcing people to upgrade. Any such decision will have fallout. Such as anyone who tries to get in the game late. I'm afraid it does seem to work out like that, yes. An update is in the works for those using more recent releases, That's good news, although the responsible thing to do was not relaease version 2.5 until such issues are resolved. Well that would be an issue for the release team. I'm not sure what Anthony Baxter (the release manager) would have to say in response to this point. but that won't help users who don't have access to Visual Studio. That can be solved by throwing money at the problem. But money doesn't help when the solution is on the far side of the moon. I see your problem, but I don't know what I can do to help you. There were also, as I remember it, issues with the updated version of Visual Studio being non-conformant with standards in some significant way, but I never took part in the discussions on those issues. Yes, it's occasionally very frustrating to the rest of us, but that's life. As the Kurds are well aware. I really don't think you help your argument by trying to draw parallels between the problems of compiler non-availability and those of a population subject to random genocide. You missed the point of the analogy. Perhaps because it wasn't a very good one? The US government suggested to the oppressed tribes in Iraq that they should rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein at the end of the first Gulf War. And what did the US government do when they rose up? Nothing. They were left to twist in the wind. Try to keep things in perspective, please. See if you can see the similarity. I buy into Python. I spend a lot of effort developing a math library based on GMPY to use in my research. I discover a bug in GMPY and actually go to a lot of effort and solve it. But _I_ can't even use it because I've been left to twist in the wind by the fact that Python 2.5 for Windows was built with an obsolete compiler that's not even available. Luckily, unlike the Kurds, my situation had a happy ending, someone else compiled the fixed GMPY source and made a 2.5 Windows version available. But can anyone say what will happen the next time? Presumably not. I presume you have been reporting your bugs through the Sourceforge project to keep the developers in touch with the issues you have found? Normally a package's maintainers will produce updated installers, but this behaviour is unreliable and (no pun intended) patchy sometimes. The best I feel I can do is raise these things on occasion, on the off-chance that I manage to catch the attention of someone who is altruistic, knowledgeable, and who has some spare time on their hands! Someone who, say, solved the memory leak in the GMPY divm() function even though he had no way of compiling the source code? Just think of what such an altruistic, knowedgeable person could do if he could use the current VC compiler or some other legally available compiler. Your efforts would probably be far better spent trying to build a back-end for mingw or some similar system into Python's development system, to allow Python for Windows to be built on a regular rather than a one-off basis using a completely open source tool chain. No, as I said elsewhere, I'm not a software developer, I'm an amateur math researcher. My efforts are best spent as an actual end user to find and report bugs that the developers never see. Remember, a programmer, because he wrote it, only _thinks_ he knows how the
Re: pygame and python 2.5
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 01:08:21 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An update is in the works for those using more recent releases, That's good news, although the responsible thing to do was not relaease version 2.5 until such issues are resolved. I realize you're a Windows user, and a Windows user with an AOL email address at that, so it may come as a shock to learn that the computer industry doesn't start and finish on Windows. I don't see why the needs of Windows users like yourself should come ahead of the needs of users on Mac OS, Linux, Solaris, etc. but that won't help users who don't have access to Visual Studio. That can be solved by throwing money at the problem. But money doesn't help when the solution is on the far side of the moon. You're mixing metaphors and I don't understand what you mean. Yes, it's occasionally very frustrating to the rest of us, but that's life. As the Kurds are well aware. I really don't think you help your argument by trying to draw parallels between the problems of compiler non-availability and those of a population subject to random genocide. You missed the point of the analogy. The US government suggested to the oppressed tribes in Iraq that they should rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein at the end of the first Gulf War. And what did the US government do when they rose up? Nothing. They were left to twist in the wind. Both the southern Iraqis (mostly so-called marsh Arabs and Shiites) and the northern Kurds rose up against Saddam Hussein. After the Kurdish rebellion failed, the US and UK belatedly provided them with aid, lots of aid, and kept the northern no-fly zone going until it was no longer relevant (2003, the second invasion of Iraq). It was the southern Iraqis who were left to be slaughtered. Although technically there was a no-fly zone in the south, it wasn't enforced when it really counted -- while the rebellion was in full force, the Iraqi government asked the US for permission to fly into the south. Permission was given, and the Iraq air force used combat aircraft against the rebels. Unlike the Kurds, they got no aid, neither money nor military support. The end result was that the southern Iraqs were hung out to dry, while the Kurds ended up a virtually independent state-within-a-state, with their own government, their own army, and US and British aircraft protecting them. Try to keep things in perspective, please. See if you can see the similarity. I buy into Python. I spend a lot of effort developing a math library based on GMPY to use in my research. I discover a bug in GMPY and actually go to a lot of effort and solve it. Good on you, and I'm not being sarcastic. But do try to keep a bit of perspective. Whatever your problem, you're not being bombed or shot. Frankly, the fact that you not only came up with the analogy, but continue to defend it, suggests an over-active sense of your own entitlement. But _I_ can't even use it because I've been left to twist in the wind by the fact that Python 2.5 for Windows was built with an obsolete compiler that's not even available. Luckily, unlike the Kurds, my situation had a happy ending, someone else compiled the fixed GMPY source and made a 2.5 Windows version available. But can anyone say what will happen the next time? Get yourself a compiler, then you won't be relying on the kindness of strangers. If that's not practical, for whatever reason, then remember: you're relying on the kindness of strangers. They don't owe you a thing. If anything, you owe them. [snip] Your efforts would probably be far better spent trying to build a back-end for mingw or some similar system into Python's development system, to allow Python for Windows to be built on a regular rather than a one-off basis using a completely open source tool chain. No, as I said elsewhere, I'm not a software developer, I'm an amateur math researcher. My efforts are best spent as an actual end user If you won't scratch your own itch, don't be surprised if nobody else cares enough to scratch it for you. to find and report bugs that the developers never see. Remember, a programmer, because he wrote it, only _thinks_ he knows how the program works. Whereas I, the user, _know_ how it works. Oh wow. That's the most audacious, self-involved and sheer arrogant claim I've ever heard, and I've heard a lot of nonsense sprouted by arrogant know-nothings with delusions of grandeur. For the sake of your credibility, I hope you can support that claim. [snip] It's much harder than sniping on a newsgroup, That figures. You try and contribute and you get accused of being a troll. I have a problem. I demand that somebody fix it for me! is hardly contributing. If you don't have the technical skills to fix it yourself, have you considered putting hand in pocket and paying a software developer to do it? It might even come out cheaper than buying a commercial compiler, and it
Re: pygame and python 2.5
On Feb 11, 4:24 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 11, 1:35?am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] After all, they have already given freely and generously, and if they choose not to give more on top of that, it's really up to them. Right. Get people to commit and then abandon them. Nice. Anyone who committed to Python did so without being battered by a multi-million dollar advertising campaign. Multi-million dollar ad campaigns mean nothing to me. I committed to Python because it's a great language. I've dabbled in perl, Visual BASIC, UBASIC, REXX, Java, Scheme, C and C++ but Python is the one I use. Yes, but your decision must surely have been an informed one, and there must surely be reasons why Python remains your choice. The Python Software Foundation has only recently dipped its toes in the advocacy waters, with results that are still under evaluation. And the use of the Microsoft free VC6 SDK was never a part of the official means of producing Python or its extensions, it was a community-developed solution to the lack of availability of a free VS-compatible compilation system for extension modules. I agree that there are frustrations involved with maintaining extension modules on the Windows platform without having a copy of Visual Studio (of the correct version) available. One of the reasons Python still uses an outdated version of VS is to avoid forcing people to upgrade. Any such decision will have fallout. Such as anyone who tries to get in the game late. I'm afraid it does seem to work out like that, yes. An update is in the works for those using more recent releases, That's good news, although the responsible thing to do was not relaease version 2.5 until such issues are resolved. Well that would be an issue for the release team. I'm not sure what Anthony Baxter (the release manager) would have to say in response to this point. Possibly something like: I realize you're a Windows user, and a Windows user with an AOL email address at that, so it may come as a shock to learn that the computer industry doesn't start and finish on Windows. I don't see why the needs of Windows users like yourself should come ahead of the needs of users on Mac OS, Linux, Solaris, etc. - Steven D'Arpano I would hope that it would instead be that the needs of all users are equal. but that won't help users who don't have access to Visual Studio. That can be solved by throwing money at the problem. But money doesn't help when the solution is on the far side of the moon. I see your problem, but I don't know what I can do to help you. Well, that was the point of this, to get people to see the problem. There were also, as I remember it, issues with the updated version of Visual Studio being non-conformant with standards in some significant way, but I never took part in the discussions on those issues. Yes, it's occasionally very frustrating to the rest of us, but that's life. As the Kurds are well aware. I really don't think you help your argument by trying to draw parallels between the problems of compiler non-availability and those of a population subject to random genocide. You missed the point of the analogy. Perhaps because it wasn't a very good one? The US government suggested to the oppressed tribes in Iraq that they should rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein at the end of the first Gulf War. And what did the US government do when they rose up? Nothing. They were left to twist in the wind. Try to keep things in perspective, please. See if you can see the similarity. I buy into Python. I spend a lot of effort developing a math library based on GMPY to use in my research. I discover a bug in GMPY and actually go to a lot of effort and solve it. But _I_ can't even use it because I've been left to twist in the wind by the fact that Python 2.5 for Windows was built with an obsolete compiler that's not even available. Luckily, unlike the Kurds, my situation had a happy ending, someone else compiled the fixed GMPY source and made a 2.5 Windows version available. But can anyone say what will happen the next time? Presumably not. I presume you have been reporting your bugs through the Sourceforge project to keep the developers in touch with the issues you have found? Last time I tried, it didn't work and e-mail to the maintainer didn't get any response. Normally a package's maintainers will produce updated installers, Unless they have stopped doing Windows developement as part of their job as is the case with GMPY. Luckily, there's someone out there who does create Windows binaries. but this behaviour is unreliable and (no pun intended) patchy sometimes. The best I feel I can do is raise these things on occasion, on the off-chance that I manage to catch the attention of someone who is
Re: pygame and python 2.5
On Feb 11, 5:33?am, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 01:08:21 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An update is in the works for those using more recent releases, That's good news, although the responsible thing to do was not relaease version 2.5 until such issues are resolved. I realize you're a Windows user, and a Windows user with an AOL email address at that, Now I know what it felt like to be a Shiite living in Iraq. so it may come as a shock to learn that the computer industry doesn't start and finish on Windows. I don't see why the needs of Windows users like yourself should come ahead of the needs of users on Mac OS, Linux, Solaris, etc. but that won't help users who don't have access to Visual Studio. That can be solved by throwing money at the problem. But money doesn't help when the solution is on the far side of the moon. You're mixing metaphors and I don't understand what you mean. Yes, it's occasionally very frustrating to the rest of us, but that's life. As the Kurds are well aware. I really don't think you help your argument by trying to draw parallels between the problems of compiler non-availability and those of a population subject to random genocide. You missed the point of the analogy. The US government suggested to the oppressed tribes in Iraq that they should rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein at the end of the first Gulf War. And what did the US government do when they rose up? Nothing. They were left to twist in the wind. Both the southern Iraqis (mostly so-called marsh Arabs and Shiites) and the northern Kurds rose up against Saddam Hussein. After the Kurdish rebellion failed, the US and UK belatedly provided them with aid, lots of aid, and kept the northern no-fly zone going until it was no longer relevant (2003, the second invasion of Iraq). It was the southern Iraqis who were left to be slaughtered. Although technically there was a no-fly zone in the south, it wasn't enforced when it really counted -- while the rebellion was in full force, the Iraqi government asked the US for permission to fly into the south. Permission was given, and the Iraq air force used combat aircraft against the rebels. Unlike the Kurds, they got no aid, neither money nor military support. The end result was that the southern Iraqs were hung out to dry, while the Kurds ended up a virtually independent state-within-a-state, with their own government, their own army, and US and British aircraft protecting them. Try to keep things in perspective, please. See if you can see the similarity. I buy into Python. I spend a lot of effort developing a math library based on GMPY to use in my research. I discover a bug in GMPY and actually go to a lot of effort and solve it. Good on you, and I'm not being sarcastic. But do try to keep a bit of perspective. Whatever your problem, you're not being bombed or shot. Frankly, the fact that you not only came up with the analogy, but continue to defend it, suggests an over-active sense of your own entitlement. But _I_ can't even use it because I've been left to twist in the wind by the fact that Python 2.5 for Windows was built with an obsolete compiler that's not even available. Luckily, unlike the Kurds, my situation had a happy ending, someone else compiled the fixed GMPY source and made a 2.5 Windows version available. But can anyone say what will happen the next time? Get yourself a compiler, then you won't be relying on the kindness of strangers. If that's not practical, for whatever reason, then remember: you're relying on the kindness of strangers. They don't owe you a thing. If anything, you owe them. [snip] Your efforts would probably be far better spent trying to build a back-end for mingw or some similar system into Python's development system, to allow Python for Windows to be built on a regular rather than a one-off basis using a completely open source tool chain. No, as I said elsewhere, I'm not a software developer, I'm an amateur math researcher. My efforts are best spent as an actual end user If you won't scratch your own itch, don't be surprised if nobody else cares enough to scratch it for you. to find and report bugs that the developers never see. Remember, a programmer, because he wrote it, only _thinks_ he knows how the program works. Whereas I, the user, _know_ how it works. Oh wow. That's the most audacious, self-involved and sheer arrogant claim I've ever heard, and I've heard a lot of nonsense sprouted by arrogant know-nothings with delusions of grandeur. For the sake of your credibility, I hope you can support that claim. [snip] It's much harder than sniping on a newsgroup, That figures. You try and contribute and you get accused of being a troll. I have a problem. I demand that somebody fix it for me! is hardly contributing. If you don't
Re: pygame and python 2.5
Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Sizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Python extensions written in C require recompilation for each new Ben version of Python, due to Python limitations. Can you propose a means to eliminate this limitation? Yes. - Instead of calling something, send it a message... I suppose you are proposing to use the ISO 1.333 generic message-passing interface for this? The one that doesn't actually call a function to pass a message? regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Blog of Note: http://holdenweb.blogspot.com See you at PyCon? http://us.pycon.org/TX2007 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
Python used to work that way. You'd then silently get errors if the API changed between version A and version B and you neglected to recompile the extensions you compiled against version A. bearophile Can't the compiled module have one or more test functions bearophile that can be used during linking to see if the compiled bearophile module respects the expected standard? Given the complexity of the formal API how would you test to see if the extension violated a particular aspect of the API? What if one of the API bits used is implemented as a C macro (as parts are) and it was changed simply to fix a bug. Wouldn't you want to know with a high degree of certainty that you should recompile? How would a test function tell you that? A simple API versioning scheme does that. It means you have to recompile when a new version of Python comes out. In fact, you can think of it as the test function you suggest. It's just that it's noted at the time a module is imported, not strictly speaking at link time. It tells you, Hey buddy. You're using an outdated version of the API. What it can't tell you is if the parts of the API your particular module uses are used incorrectly. Skip -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5: switch to linux?
Siggi ... I conclude now that I will be better off to drop Windows and Siggi install Linux on my next PC, to be able to reap the full benefits Siggi of Python. Darn tootin'... (*) Skip (*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_Darn_Tootin' -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
On Feb 10, 6:31 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 9, 11:39?am, Ben Sizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hopefully in the future, some of those convoluted steps will be fixed, but that requires someone putting in the effort to do so. As is often the case with Python, and indeed many open source projects, the people who are knowledgeable enough to do such things usually don't need to do them, as their setup already works just fine. So you're saying the knowledgeable people's attitude is fuck everyone else as lomg as it's not MY problem? And you people complain about Microsoft. Am I one of those people? You don't exactly make it clear. But yes, there is a lot of well, it works for me going around. If you do that long enough, people stop complaining, so people wrongly assume there's no longer a problem. This is partly why Python has various warts on Windows and why the standard libraries are oddly biased, why configuring Linux almost always ends up involving hand- editing a .conf file, why the leading cross-platform multimedia library SDL still doesn't do hardware graphics acceleration a decade after such hardware became mainstream, and so on. However, the difference between the open-source people and Microsoft is the the open-source people aren't being paid by you for the use of their product, so they're not obligated in any way to help you. After all, they have already given freely and generously, and if they choose not to give more on top of that, it's really up to them. Yes, it's occasionally very frustrating to the rest of us, but that's life. The best I feel I can do is raise these things on occasion, on the off- chance that I manage to catch the attention of someone who is altruistic, knowledgeable, and who has some spare time on their hands! -- Ben Sizer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
On Feb 10, 8:42 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Sizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Python extensions written in C require recompilation for each new Ben version of Python, due to Python limitations. Can you propose a means to eliminate this limitation? Yes. - Instead of calling something, send it a message... I suppose you are proposing to use the ISO 1.333 generic message-passing interface for this? The one that doesn't actually call a function to pass a message? I'm assuming you're being facetious here..? Of course, functions get called at the ends of the message passing process, but those functions can stay the same across versions while the messages themselves change. The important part is reducing the binary interface between the two sides to a level where it's trivial to guarantee that part of the equation is safe. eg. Instead of having PySomeType_FromLong(long value) exposed to the API, you could have a PyAnyObject_FromLong(long value, char* object_type_name). That function can return NULL and set up an exception if it doesn't understand the object you asked for, so Python versions earlier than the one that implement the type you want will just raise an exception gracefully rather than not linking. The other issue comes with interfaces that are fragile by definition - eg. instead of returning a FILE* from Python to the extension, return the file descriptor and create the FILE* on the extension side with fdopen. -- Ben Sizer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
On Feb 10, 4:07?pm, Ben Sizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 10, 6:31 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 9, 11:39?am, Ben Sizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hopefully in the future, some of those convoluted steps will be fixed, but that requires someone putting in the effort to do so. As is often the case with Python, and indeed many open source projects, the people who are knowledgeable enough to do such things usually don't need to do them, as their setup already works just fine. So you're saying the knowledgeable people's attitude is fuck everyone else as lomg as it's not MY problem? And you people complain about Microsoft. Am I one of those people? You don't exactly make it clear. I'm talking about the people who complain about Microsoft making the VC6 compiler no longer legally available and yet are so irresponsible that they use it for the latest release. But yes, there is a lot of well, it works for me going around. If you do that long enough, people stop complaining, so people wrongly assume there's no longer a problem. This is partly why Python has various warts on Windows and why the standard libraries are oddly biased, why configuring Linux almost always ends up involving hand- editing a .conf file, why the leading cross-platform multimedia library SDL still doesn't do hardware graphics acceleration a decade after such hardware became mainstream, and so on. However, the difference between the open-source people and Microsoft is the the open-source people aren't being paid by you for the use of their product, so they're not obligated in any way to help you. This argument has become tiresome. The Python community wants Python to be a big fish in the big pond. That's why they make Windows binaries available. After all, they have already given freely and generously, and if they choose not to give more on top of that, it's really up to them. Right. Get people to commit and then abandon them. Nice. Yes, it's occasionally very frustrating to the rest of us, but that's life. As the Kurds are well aware. The best I feel I can do is raise these things on occasion, on the off-chance that I manage to catch the attention of someone who is altruistic, knowledgeable, and who has some spare time on their hands! Someone who, say, solved the memory leak in the GMPY divm() function even though he had no way of compiling the source code? Just think of what such an altruistic, knowedgeable person could do if he could use the current VC compiler or some other legally available compiler. -- Ben Sizer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
However, the difference between the open-source people and Microsoft is the the open-source people aren't being paid by you for the use of their product, so they're not obligated in any way to help you. mensanator This argument has become tiresome. The Python community mensanator wants Python to be a big fish in the big pond. That's why mensanator they make Windows binaries available. I suspect the main reason Windows binaries are produced is because a) Microsoft doesn't ship Python installed on Windows, and b) your garden variety Windows user doesn't have the tools necessary to build Python from source. Not being a Windows user myself I don't understand all the ins and outs of VC6 v. VC7, legal or technical. Is there nothing Microsoft could have done to make VC7 compatible with the existing VC6-based build procedure? Skip -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
On Feb 10, 11:03�pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: � � However, the difference between the open-source people and Microsoft � � is the the open-source people aren't being paid by you for the use of � � their product, so they're not obligated in any way to help you. � � mensanator This argument has become tiresome. The Python community � � mensanator wants Python to be a big fish in the big pond. That's why � � mensanator they make Windows binaries available. I suspect the main reason Windows binaries are produced is because a) Microsoft doesn't ship Python installed on Windows, and b) your garden variety Windows user doesn't have the tools necessary to build Python from source. � Not being a Windows user myself I don't understand all the ins and outs of VC6 v. VC7, legal or technical. �Is there nothing Microsoft could have done to make VC7 compatible with the existing VC6-based build procedure? Ya got me, I'm not a softeware developer, I'm an amateur math researcher. I don't know the ins and outs either. Skip -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Sizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Python extensions written in C require recompilation for each new Ben version of Python, due to Python limitations. Can you propose a means to eliminate this limitation? Yes. - Instead of calling something, send it a message... I suppose you are proposing to use the ISO 1.333 generic message-passing interface for this? The one that doesn't actually call a function to pass a message? Actually I am not aware that this ISO standard exists. My feeling about ISO standards in general are such that I would rather have *anything* else than an ISO standard. These feelings are mainly caused by the frustration of trying to decipher standards written in standardese, liberally sprinkled with non standard acronyms... Its very interesting to learn that you can pass a message without doing a call - when I next need to entertain a children's party as a magician I will endeavour to incorporate it into my act. Thanks for the tip. But more seriously, the concept is that you should couple as loosely as possible, to prevent exactly the kind of trouble that this thread talks about. Just as keyword parameters are more robust than positional parameters, the concept of doing something similar to putting a dict on a queue, is vastly more future-proof than hoping that your call will *get through* when tomorrow's compiler buggers around with the calling convention. One tends to forget that calling also builds messages on the stack. When you boil it right down, all you need for a minimalistic interface are four message types: - get something's value - set something to a value - return the requested value - do something This is not the most minimalistic interface, but its a nice compromise. The advantages of such loose coupling are quite obvious when you think about them, as you don't care where the worker sits - on the other side of the world over the internet, or in the same room in another box, or in the same box on another processor, or on the same processor in another process, or in the same process in another thread... The problem with all this, of course, is the message passing mechanism, as it is not trivial to implement something that will address all the cases. A layered approach (ISO ? ; - ) ) could do it... But Skip asked how to sort it, and this would be My Way. (TM circa 1960 F Sinatra) - Hendrik -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
Ben Sizer wrote: On Feb 10, 8:42 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Sizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Python extensions written in C require recompilation for each new Ben version of Python, due to Python limitations. Can you propose a means to eliminate this limitation? Yes. - Instead of calling something, send it a message... I suppose you are proposing to use the ISO 1.333 generic message-passing interface for this? The one that doesn't actually call a function to pass a message? I'm assuming you're being facetious here..? You're right. Of course, functions get called at the ends of the message passing process, but those functions can stay the same across versions while the messages themselves change. The important part is reducing the binary interface between the two sides to a level where it's trivial to guarantee that part of the equation is safe. eg. Instead of having PySomeType_FromLong(long value) exposed to the API, you could have a PyAnyObject_FromLong(long value, char* object_type_name). That function can return NULL and set up an exception if it doesn't understand the object you asked for, so Python versions earlier than the one that implement the type you want will just raise an exception gracefully rather than not linking. The other issue comes with interfaces that are fragile by definition - eg. instead of returning a FILE* from Python to the extension, return the file descriptor and create the FILE* on the extension side with fdopen. I agree that the coupling is rather tight at the moment and could do with being loosened to the degree you suggest. My previous post was a knee-jerk reaction to the suggestion that substituting one mechanism for another equivalent one would, by itself, solve anything. I am staying away from the Py3.0 discussions at the moment - does anybody know whether this problem is being addresses there? regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Blog of Note: http://holdenweb.blogspot.com See you at PyCon? http://us.pycon.org/TX2007 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 10, 4:07?pm, Ben Sizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 10, 6:31 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 9, 11:39?am, Ben Sizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hopefully in the future, some of those convoluted steps will be fixed, but that requires someone putting in the effort to do so. As is often the case with Python, and indeed many open source projects, the people who are knowledgeable enough to do such things usually don't need to do them, as their setup already works just fine. So you're saying the knowledgeable people's attitude is fuck everyone else as lomg as it's not MY problem? And you people complain about Microsoft. Am I one of those people? You don't exactly make it clear. I'm talking about the people who complain about Microsoft making the VC6 compiler no longer legally available and yet are so irresponsible that they use it for the latest release. I think you'll find those two sets are disjoint. But yes, there is a lot of well, it works for me going around. If you do that long enough, people stop complaining, so people wrongly assume there's no longer a problem. This is partly why Python has various warts on Windows and why the standard libraries are oddly biased, why configuring Linux almost always ends up involving hand- editing a .conf file, why the leading cross-platform multimedia library SDL still doesn't do hardware graphics acceleration a decade after such hardware became mainstream, and so on. However, the difference between the open-source people and Microsoft is the the open-source people aren't being paid by you for the use of their product, so they're not obligated in any way to help you. This argument has become tiresome. The Python community wants Python to be a big fish in the big pond. That's why they make Windows binaries available. ? I would suggest rather that the Python community (by which you apparently mean the developers) hope that the fruits of their labours will be used by as wide a cross-section of computer users as possible. The goals of open source projects are not those of commercial product developers: I and others wouldn't collectively put in thousands of unpaid hours a year to make a commercial product better and protect its intellectual property, for example. After all, they have already given freely and generously, and if they choose not to give more on top of that, it's really up to them. Right. Get people to commit and then abandon them. Nice. Anyone who committed to Python did so without being battered by a multi-million dollar advertising campaign. The Python Software Foundation has only recently dipped its toes in the advocacy waters, with results that are still under evaluation. And the use of the Microsoft free VC6 SDK was never a part of the official means of producing Python or its extensions, it was a community-developed solution to the lack of availability of a free VS-compatible compilation system for extension modules. I agree that there are frustrations involved with maintaining extension modules on the Windows platform without having a copy of Visual Studio (of the correct version) available. One of the reasons Python still uses an outdated version of VS is to avoid forcing people to upgrade. Any such decision will have fallout. An update is in the works for those using more recent releases, but that won't help users who don't have access to Visual Studio. Yes, it's occasionally very frustrating to the rest of us, but that's life. As the Kurds are well aware. I really don't think you help your argument by trying to draw parallels between the problems of compiler non-availability and those of a population subject to random genocide. Try to keep things in perspective, please. The best I feel I can do is raise these things on occasion, on the off-chance that I manage to catch the attention of someone who is altruistic, knowledgeable, and who has some spare time on their hands! Someone who, say, solved the memory leak in the GMPY divm() function even though he had no way of compiling the source code? Just think of what such an altruistic, knowedgeable person could do if he could use the current VC compiler or some other legally available compiler. Your efforts would probably be far better spent trying to build a back-end for mingw or some similar system into Python's development system, to allow Python for Windows to be built on a regular rather than a one-off basis using a completely open source tool chain. The fact that the current maintainers of the Windows side of Python choose to use a commercial tool to help them isn't something I am going to try and second-guess. To do so would be to belittle efforts I would have no way of duplicating myself, and I have far too much respect for those efforts to do so. There are published ways to build extension modules for Windows using mingw, by the way - have
Re: pygame and python 2.5
Ben Sizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 10, 8:42 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Sizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Python extensions written in C require recompilation for each new Ben version of Python, due to Python limitations. Can you propose a means to eliminate this limitation? Yes. - Instead of calling something, send it a message... I suppose you are proposing to use the ISO 1.333 generic message-passing interface for this? The one that doesn't actually call a function to pass a message? I'm assuming you're being facetious here..? Please see my reply to Steve - and Yes, I believe he was oulling the oiss... Of course, functions get called at the ends of the message passing process, but those functions can stay the same across versions while the messages themselves change. The important part is reducing the binary interface between the two sides to a level where it's trivial to guarantee that part of the equation is safe. eg. Instead of having PySomeType_FromLong(long value) exposed to the API, you could have a PyAnyObject_FromLong(long value, char* object_type_name). That function can return NULL and set up an exception if it doesn't understand the object you asked for, so Python versions earlier than the one that implement the type you want will just raise an exception gracefully rather than not linking. The other issue comes with interfaces that are fragile by definition - eg. instead of returning a FILE* from Python to the extension, return the file descriptor and create the FILE* on the extension side with fdopen. This sort of thing is exactly what is wrong with the whole concept of an API... Its very difficult, if not impossible, to guarantee that *my stuff* and *your stuff* will work together over time. Whereas if *my stuff* just publishes a message format, *anything* that can make up the message can interact with it - but it requires *my stuff* to be independently executable, and it needs a message passing mechanism that will stand the test of time. And it can create a whole new market of Mini Appliances each of which has *your stuff* inside them... - Hendrik -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
pygame and python 2.5
@Ben Sizer Hi Ben, in January I received your message re Pygame and Python 2.5: pygame and python 2.5 Ben Sizer kylotan at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 11:01:00 CET 2007 siggi wrote: when I rtry to install pygame (pygame-1.7.1release.win32-py2.4.exe, the most ciurrent version I found) it requires Python 2.4! Will I really have to uninstall my Python 2.5 and install the old Python 2.4 in order to use pygame? For now, yes. This is a long-standing problem with Python really, requiring extensions to always be recompiled for newer versions. I usually have to wait about 6 months to a year after any new release before I can actually install it, due to the extension lag. -- Ben Sizer As a Python (and programming ) newbie allow me a - certainly naive - question: What is this time consuming part of recompiling an extension, such as Pygame, from source code to Windows? Is it a matter of spare time to do the job? Or do you have to wait for some Windows modules that are necessary for compiling? I am just asking for sake of scientific interest; building, compiling from source code is a mystery to me poor Windows user ;-) Thank you, siggi -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
On Feb 9, 1:48 pm, siggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: @Ben Sizer Lucky I spotted this... As a Python (and programming ) newbie allow me a - certainly naive - question: What is this time consuming part of recompiling an extension, such as Pygame, from source code to Windows? Is it a matter of spare time to do the job? Or do you have to wait for some Windows modules that are necessary for compiling? The problem is something like this: - Python extensions written in C require recompilation for each new version of Python, due to Python limitations. - Recompiling such an extension requires you to have a C compiler set up on your local machine. - Windows doesn't come with a C compiler, so you have to download one. - The compiler that Python expects you to use (Visual Studio 2003) is no longer legally available. - The other compiler that you can use (MinGW) is requires a slightly convoluted set of steps in order to build an extension. Hopefully in the future, some of those convoluted steps will be fixed, but that requires someone putting in the effort to do so. As is often the case with Python, and indeed many open source projects, the people who are knowledgeable enough to do such things usually don't need to do them, as their setup already works just fine. -- Ben Sizer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
Ben Python extensions written in C require recompilation for each new Ben version of Python, due to Python limitations. Can you propose a means to eliminate this limitation? Skip -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
Ben Sizer wrote: The problem is something like this: - Python extensions written in C require recompilation for each new version of Python, due to Python limitations. - Recompiling such an extension requires you to have a C compiler set up on your local machine. - Windows doesn't come with a C compiler, so you have to download one. - The compiler that Python expects you to use (Visual Studio 2003) is no longer legally available. - The other compiler that you can use (MinGW) is requires a slightly convoluted set of steps in order to build an extension. Hopefully in the future, some of those convoluted steps will be fixed, but that requires someone putting in the effort to do so. As is often the case with Python, and indeed many open source projects, the people who are knowledgeable enough to do such things usually don't need to do them, as their setup already works just fine. True. There really should be no need to recompile a C extension unless the linkage format of the C compiler changes, which is a very rare event. Binary compatibility needs to be improved. In the GCC world, any compiler since 3.2 should generate interchangeable output. http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Compatibility.html In the Windows world, I'm not sure about compatibility across the VC6/.NET transition, but I think you only need one version for either side of that one. John Nagle -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Python extensions written in C require recompilation for each new Ben version of Python, due to Python limitations. Can you propose a means to eliminate this limitation? Sure, write your wrapper-style extensions in ctypes :) . For example, pygame-ctypes[1] should work on Python 2.5. Of course, you need to get the PyGame dependencies (SDL) installed via some external mechanism, but the ctypes-based code should run in Python 2.5 today (with the caveat that it's not finished software). [1] http://www.pygame.org/ctypes/ Have fun, Mike -- Mike C. Fletcher Designer, VR Plumber, Coder http://www.vrplumber.com http://blog.vrplumber.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
Ben Python extensions written in C require recompilation for each new Ben version of Python, due to Python limitations. Can you propose a means to eliminate this limitation? Mike Sure, write your wrapper-style extensions in ctypes :). I was think more along the lines of how could the Python extension module API change so that for example, modules compiled for Python 2.6 would continue to work without warning under Python 2.7. Maybe ctypes is the answer, but suspect it addresses a different API than I was thinking of. Skip -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
On Feb 9, 5:53 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Python extensions written in C require recompilation for each new Ben version of Python, due to Python limitations. Can you propose a means to eliminate this limitation? By putting an intermediate layer between the extensions and the language. I suppose this is essentially what ctypes does, except from the other direction. If someone could explain the limitation in detail, I expect ways could be found around it. After all, I don't know of any other systems that require you to recompile all the extensions when you upgrade the application. Winamp is one application that comes to mind which has kept plugins working across many upgrades. I doubt they're still compiling with Visual Studio 6. Perhaps it works because they have a more restrictive API that isn't passing non-primitive types across the DLL boundary. -- Ben Sizer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
Ben If someone could explain the limitation in detail, I expect ways Ben could be found around it. After all, I don't know of any other Ben systems that require you to recompile all the extensions when you Ben upgrade the application. Python used to work that way. You'd then silently get errors if the API changed between version A and version B and you neglected to recompile the extensions you compiled against version A. Maybe the Python extension API is mature enough now that it can be frozen, but I sort of doubt it. Skip -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
Skip: Python used to work that way. You'd then silently get errors if the API changed between version A and version B and you neglected to recompile the extensions you compiled against version A. Can't the compiled module have one or more test functions that can be used during linking to see if the compiled module respects the expected standard? Bye, bearophile -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben If someone could explain the limitation in detail, I expect ways Ben could be found around it. After all, I don't know of any other Ben systems that require you to recompile all the extensions when you Ben upgrade the application. Python used to work that way. You'd then silently get errors if the API changed between version A and version B and you neglected to recompile the extensions you compiled against version A. Maybe the Python extension API is mature enough now that it can be frozen, but I sort of doubt it. The only reason this is an issue is because the system is tightly bound on a binary level. Decouple that and the problem goes away. These 'silent' errors will all stem from a small number of specific things, each of which can be addressed. eg. PyFile_AsFile returns a FILE*, which is all well and good if both the extension's compiler and the language's compiler agree on what you get when you dereference that type, and probably not so good when they don't. The answer there is not to make assumptions about the structure of complex types across the boundary. The same may well go for the multitude of macros that make assumptions about the structure of a PyObject. It's not really much to do with the maturity, since functions don't seem to be getting regularly removed from the API. It's more the choices made about how to implement it. -- Ben Sizer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Sizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Python extensions written in C require recompilation for each new Ben version of Python, due to Python limitations. Can you propose a means to eliminate this limitation? Yes. - Instead of calling something, send it a message... - Hendrik -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
On Feb 9, 11:39�am, Ben Sizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 9, 1:48 pm, siggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: @Ben Sizer Lucky I spotted this... As a Python (and programming ) newbie �allow me a �- certainly naive - question: What is this time consuming part of recompiling an extension, such as Pygame, from source code to Windows? Is it a matter of spare time to do the job? Or do you have to wait for some Windows modules that are necessary for compiling? The problem is something like this: �- Python extensions written in C require recompilation for each new version of Python, due to Python limitations. �- Recompiling such an extension requires you to have a C compiler set up on your local machine. �- Windows doesn't come with a C compiler, so you have to download one. �- The compiler that Python expects you to use (Visual Studio 2003) is no longer legally available. �- The other compiler that you can use (MinGW) is requires a slightly convoluted set of steps in order to build an extension. Hopefully in the future, some of those convoluted steps will be fixed, but that requires someone putting in the effort to do so. As is often the case with Python, and indeed many open source projects, the people who are knowledgeable enough to do such things usually don't need to do them, as their setup already works just fine. So you're saying the knowledgeable people's attitude is fuck everyone else as lomg as it's not MY problem? And you people complain about Microsoft. -- Ben Sizer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5: switch to linux?
Ben Sizer wrote: [snip] Hopefully in the future, some of those convoluted steps will be fixed, but that requires someone putting in the effort to do so. As is often the case with Python, and indeed many open source projects, the people who are knowledgeable enough to do such things usually don't need to do them, as their setup already works just fine. -- Ben Sizer Thank you, and all those putting in their comments to my thread. As a python newbie, I conclude now that I will be better off to drop Windows and install Linux on my next PC, to be able to reap the full benefits of Python. Thanks, siggi -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
Thanks, I'll try that! Siggi Laurent Pointal [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] siggi a écrit : Hi all, when I rtry to install pygame (pygame-1.7.1release.win32-py2.4.exe, the most ciurrent version I found) it requires Python 2.4! Will I really have to uninstall my Python 2.5 and install the old Python 2.4 in order to use pygame? Note: You can have both versions installed, just be sure to use the right one when using pygame (until there is a 2.5 compatible version). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
pygame and python 2.5
Hi all, when I rtry to install pygame (pygame-1.7.1release.win32-py2.4.exe, the most ciurrent version I found) it requires Python 2.4! Will I really have to uninstall my Python 2.5 and install the old Python 2.4 in order to use pygame? Thanks, Siggi -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
siggi wrote: when I rtry to install pygame (pygame-1.7.1release.win32-py2.4.exe, the most ciurrent version I found) it requires Python 2.4! Will I really have to uninstall my Python 2.5 and install the old Python 2.4 in order to use pygame? For now, yes. This is a long-standing problem with Python really, requiring extensions to always be recompiled for newer versions. I usually have to wait about 6 months to a year after any new release before I can actually install it, due to the extension lag. -- Ben Sizer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: pygame and python 2.5
siggi a écrit : Hi all, when I rtry to install pygame (pygame-1.7.1release.win32-py2.4.exe, the most ciurrent version I found) it requires Python 2.4! Will I really have to uninstall my Python 2.5 and install the old Python 2.4 in order to use pygame? Note: You can have both versions installed, just be sure to use the right one when using pygame (until there is a 2.5 compatible version). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
