Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] Which version to use??
Ronald Oussoren wrote: To be honest, I'm far from impressed by the quality of the wxWidgets port to the Mac. I've run into numerous issues in the past where API calls worked just fine on Windows but failed to work on OSX. That isn't very helpfull when you want to do the groundwork of a Windows app using wxWidgets on OSX and do as little as possible on an actual windows machine. Being a wx fan, I thought I'd comment. Ronald is absolutely correct -- there are platform differences -- there is no substitute for testing early and often on all the platforms you want to support. I've found that while it's fairly common for s given piece of code to work on one platform, but not another, I can usually find a way to write it that works everywhere -- and that's usually the documented "proper" way. i.e. you can get away with different errors on the different platforms. However, while not perfect, what are the alternatives? If you only want to support the Mac, then by all means use PyObjC -- that will give you a fully native application, but it is not an option if you want to support other platforms. pyQT, pyGTK, and tkInter are the other options -- each has its fans, but none of them produce native looking and feeling apps on OS-X. wx wraps the native libs (Carbon for now, but the next version is Cocoa), so it's possible to have truly native Mac apps with wx, that are also native on Windows and *nix (of you call GTK native). Note that I say possible, because there are lot of details about how you design the apps t make them look and feel "right" on the Mac -- if you neglect those, it won't be quite right. I suppose if you tweak a QT app enough, it might look native, but wx does a much better job out of the box. The other option, of course, is to write multiple GUIs -- my experience is that it takes a LOT of code to write a GUI -- so that's a lot of work! -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception chris.bar...@noaa.gov ___ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/Pythonmac-SIG
Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] Which version to use??
On May 26, 2010, at 03:27 PM, Joe Hughes wrote:I have some questions concerning what I'm reading below. Ronald states that Python 3.1.2 works with PyObjC on OSX 10.6. Is this with PyObjC 2.2 on the main site or some branch that is still experimental? If this is experimental do I use RCS/CVS/Subversion to load it onto my Mac and compile it? It has been many years since I last used an experimental branch and I forgot how to get it, but I also like using Python 3 on my Mac and have wanted to try PyObjC.This is with the version of pyobjc that is currently in the repository (the trunk). Building PyObjC is a bit of a hassle due to the large number of subprojects and I'd therefore advise against installing from the repository unless you know what you're doing.I with some luck I'll upload a first beta of the next release before WWDC, I'm currently wrestling with my test environment: I've writting a script that builds and runs the unittests for all subprojects and that doesn't work entirely right for python 3.x yet. This is caused by bugs in some components I'm using, at least when building using python 3.2 (alpha version from the repository). I have to fix those issues before I can properly automate testing for the py3k portRonald Thanks, Joe On May 26, 2010, at 1:54 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote: > > On 25 May, 2010, at 23:15, Rodney Somerstein wrote: > >> At 10:08 PM +0200 5/25/10, Ronald Oussoren wrote: >>> Python 3.1.2 works fine on OSX. There is an issue with building extensions on OSX 10.6, but that will be fixed in 3.1.3. >>> >>> PyObjC in the repository works with python 3 and I'm working towards a release. I haven't looked into py2app yet. With some luck it will work without major changes. >> >> Good to hear. Thanks for the hard work on PyObjC. Do you have specific plans to look into py2app for Python 3? > > I will look into py2app after the next release of PyObjC, which will happen before python 2.7rc2 is released. > >> The Mac Python community seems pretty small. Given that Python seems to position itself as a major programming and scripting language, it seems rather strange that there is so little effort placed into providing first class support for the second most popular computing platform. I know that various individuals on this list put a tremendous amount of work into porting and supporting various parts of Python on the Mac platform. But what is the overall state of Python here? Especially in regards to Python 3, which seems to definitely be the future of the language. >>> >>> Porting to py3k is an issue throughout the python community, mostly because cleanly porting non-trivial projects takes time. What hasn't helped is that a lot of project depend on setuptools and that didn't supported until pretty recently (and that only through the 'distribute' fork). >>> >>> As far as PyObjC is concerned port to py3k was a lot of work due to C-API changes and because PyObjC tries to provide seemless integration between Python and Cocoa, which means it is pretty sensitive to the large changes between python 2.x and 3.x. >>> >> >> It's great to see dedicated people such as yourself continuing this kind of work. Hopefully things will start to fall into place for Python 3.x. I see questions on comp.lang.python and elsewhere from people wanting to use Python 3.x as their main development language. I think many people, such as myself, are reluctant to jump into Python right now. My perception is that 2.x has a limited life span. It seems not to be the best choice to jump into that right now when the 3.x branch of the language itself is where most work seems to be going on. However, as you noted, many packages aren't trivial to port and that seems to be going very slowly. > > 2.x has a limited life span indeed, but that's still a long time in Internet time: 2.7 will be maintained at least 2 years and longer when there is reason to do so. The current consensus is that there will be no 2.8 though, which means there will be no new features in 2.x after the release of 2.7 (later this summer). > > IMHO there is a chicken-and-egg problem: there aren't a lot of python 3 users and hence there is little uptake in porting libraries to python 3 However, the reason there aren't a lot of python 3 users is that a lot of libraries aren't available yet. > >> >> Are you planning on focusing on 3.x from this point forward with only maintenance on the 2.x version of PyObjC? > > No. The C code for PyObjC contains lots of conditional code to be able to compile with both branches, while the Python code translates cleanly with 2to3. > > Having two development branches >> >> How far away is Python 3 from being the main branch of the language? Are we talking another year? 2? 5? > > Most new work in CPython is done in python 3, and when 2.7 is released all new features will only be 3.x. > >> I have looked at moving into Python several times over the years, but it always seems to be a second class
Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] Which version to use??
I have some questions concerning what I'm reading below. Ronald states that Python 3.1.2 works with PyObjC on OSX 10.6. Is this with PyObjC 2.2 on the main site or some branch that is still experimental? If this is experimental do I use RCS/CVS/Subversion to load it onto my Mac and compile it? It has been many years since I last used an experimental branch and I forgot how to get it, but I also like using Python 3 on my Mac and have wanted to try PyObjC. Thanks, Joe On May 26, 2010, at 1:54 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote: > > On 25 May, 2010, at 23:15, Rodney Somerstein wrote: > >> At 10:08 PM +0200 5/25/10, Ronald Oussoren wrote: >>> Python 3.1.2 works fine on OSX. There is an issue with building extensions >>> on OSX 10.6, but that will be fixed in 3.1.3. >>> >>> PyObjC in the repository works with python 3 and I'm working towards a >>> release. I haven't looked into py2app yet. With some luck it will work >>> without major changes. >> >> Good to hear. Thanks for the hard work on PyObjC. Do you have specific plans >> to look into py2app for Python 3? > > I will look into py2app after the next release of PyObjC, which will happen > before python 2.7rc2 is released. > >> The Mac Python community seems pretty small. Given that Python seems to position itself as a major programming and scripting language, it seems rather strange that there is so little effort placed into providing first class support for the second most popular computing platform. I know that various individuals on this list put a tremendous amount of work into porting and supporting various parts of Python on the Mac platform. But what is the overall state of Python here? Especially in regards to Python 3, which seems to definitely be the future of the language. >>> >>> Porting to py3k is an issue throughout the python community, mostly because >>> cleanly porting non-trivial projects takes time. What hasn't helped is that >>> a lot of project depend on setuptools and that didn't supported until >>> pretty recently (and that only through the 'distribute' fork). >>> >>> As far as PyObjC is concerned port to py3k was a lot of work due to C-API >>> changes and because PyObjC tries to provide seemless integration between >>> Python and Cocoa, which means it is pretty sensitive to the large changes >>> between python 2.x and 3.x. >>> >> >> It's great to see dedicated people such as yourself continuing this kind of >> work. Hopefully things will start to fall into place for Python 3.x. I see >> questions on comp.lang.python and elsewhere from people wanting to use >> Python 3.x as their main development language. I think many people, such as >> myself, are reluctant to jump into Python right now. My perception is that >> 2.x has a limited life span. It seems not to be the best choice to jump into >> that right now when the 3.x branch of the language itself is where most work >> seems to be going on. However, as you noted, many packages aren't trivial to >> port and that seems to be going very slowly. > > 2.x has a limited life span indeed, but that's still a long time in Internet > time: 2.7 will be maintained at least 2 years and longer when there is reason > to do so. The current consensus is that there will be no 2.8 though, which > means there will be no new features in 2.x after the release of 2.7 (later > this summer). > > IMHO there is a chicken-and-egg problem: there aren't a lot of python 3 users > and hence there is little uptake in porting libraries to python 3. However, > the reason there aren't a lot of python 3 users is that a lot of libraries > aren't available yet. > >> >> Are you planning on focusing on 3.x from this point forward with only >> maintenance on the 2.x version of PyObjC? > > No. The C code for PyObjC contains lots of conditional code to be able to > compile with both branches, while the Python code translates cleanly with > 2to3. > > Having two development branches >> >> How far away is Python 3 from being the main branch of the language? Are we >> talking another year? 2? 5? > > Most new work in CPython is done in python 3, and when 2.7 is released all > new features will only be 3.x. > >> I have looked at moving into Python several times over the years, but it always seems to be a second class language when it comes to producing programs to run on the Mac. At least outside of various command line tools. Is Python moving toward parity with the Windows and Unix world on the Macintosh? >>> >>> What do you mean? Python on OSX is support as well as it is on Linux and >>> Windows. >> >> I'm not trying to denigrate the hard work that you and others put into >> keeping Python functioning well on the Mac. In part, due to the fact that >> packaging seems to be trickier for people to figure out with py2app than >> with py2exe I have gotten that impression. Maybe most people are usi
Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] Which version to use??
On 25 May, 2010, at 23:15, Rodney Somerstein wrote: > At 10:08 PM +0200 5/25/10, Ronald Oussoren wrote: >> Python 3.1.2 works fine on OSX. There is an issue with building extensions >> on OSX 10.6, but that will be fixed in 3.1.3. >> >> PyObjC in the repository works with python 3 and I'm working towards a >> release. I haven't looked into py2app yet. With some luck it will work >> without major changes. > > Good to hear. Thanks for the hard work on PyObjC. Do you have specific plans > to look into py2app for Python 3? I will look into py2app after the next release of PyObjC, which will happen before python 2.7rc2 is released. > >> > The Mac Python community seems pretty small. Given that Python seems to >> > position itself as a major programming and scripting language, it seems >> > rather strange that there is so little effort placed into providing first >> > class support for the second most popular computing platform. I know that >> > various individuals on this list put a tremendous amount of work into >> > porting and supporting various parts of Python on the Mac platform. But >> > what is the overall state of Python here? Especially in regards to Python >> > 3, which seems to definitely be the future of the language. >> >> Porting to py3k is an issue throughout the python community, mostly because >> cleanly porting non-trivial projects takes time. What hasn't helped is that >> a lot of project depend on setuptools and that didn't supported until pretty >> recently (and that only through the 'distribute' fork). >> >> As far as PyObjC is concerned port to py3k was a lot of work due to C-API >> changes and because PyObjC tries to provide seemless integration between >> Python and Cocoa, which means it is pretty sensitive to the large changes >> between python 2.x and 3.x. >> > > It's great to see dedicated people such as yourself continuing this kind of > work. Hopefully things will start to fall into place for Python 3.x. I see > questions on comp.lang.python and elsewhere from people wanting to use Python > 3.x as their main development language. I think many people, such as myself, > are reluctant to jump into Python right now. My perception is that 2.x has a > limited life span. It seems not to be the best choice to jump into that right > now when the 3.x branch of the language itself is where most work seems to be > going on. However, as you noted, many packages aren't trivial to port and > that seems to be going very slowly. 2.x has a limited life span indeed, but that's still a long time in Internet time: 2.7 will be maintained at least 2 years and longer when there is reason to do so. The current consensus is that there will be no 2.8 though, which means there will be no new features in 2.x after the release of 2.7 (later this summer). IMHO there is a chicken-and-egg problem: there aren't a lot of python 3 users and hence there is little uptake in porting libraries to python 3. However, the reason there aren't a lot of python 3 users is that a lot of libraries aren't available yet. > > Are you planning on focusing on 3.x from this point forward with only > maintenance on the 2.x version of PyObjC? No. The C code for PyObjC contains lots of conditional code to be able to compile with both branches, while the Python code translates cleanly with 2to3. Having two development branches > > How far away is Python 3 from being the main branch of the language? Are we > talking another year? 2? 5? Most new work in CPython is done in python 3, and when 2.7 is released all new features will only be 3.x. > >> > I have looked at moving into Python several times over the years, but it >> > always seems to be a second class language when it comes to producing >> > programs to run on the Mac. At least outside of various command line >> > tools. Is Python moving toward parity with the Windows and Unix world on >> > the Macintosh? >> >> What do you mean? Python on OSX is support as well as it is on Linux and >> Windows. > > I'm not trying to denigrate the hard work that you and others put into > keeping Python functioning well on the Mac. In part, due to the fact that > packaging seems to be trickier for people to figure out with py2app than with > py2exe I have gotten that impression. Maybe most people are using py2app with > very little trouble and I'm only seeing the problems and requests for help > that get reported here. Py2app works at least as well as py2exe. The requests you see here are for the harder problems. IIRC two issues crop up reasonably often: (1) support for using py2app with a 64-bit build of python and (2) using py2app with libraries like Qt4 where the automatic detection of dependencies doesn't work. Support for 64-bit builds is relatively new, and full support requires some additional changes to py2app. As I'm the only developer on py2app and do all work in my free time it may take a while until I get aroun
Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] Which version to use??
Rodney Somerstein wrote: Hopefully things will start to fall into place for Python 3.x. I see questions on comp.lang.python and elsewhere from people wanting to use Python 3.x as their main development language. I think many people, such as myself, are reluctant to jump into Python right now. My perception is that 2.x has a limited life span. Limited, yes, but long -- it is the primary version for most users now -- it will be maintained for a good while. best choice to jump into that right now when the 3.x branch of the language itself is where most work seems to be going on. However, as you noted, many packages aren't trivial to port and that seems to be going very slowly. Which contradicts your perception -- there are two types of work being done: - development of the language itself -- yes, that is the 3.x branch - development of third-party packages -- this is moving slowly to 3.x, but every one I'm involved with is making great effort to keep things 2.x compatible as they develop for 3.x - development of applications with python -- still mostly 2.x The 2 to 3 transition is a much bigger deal for extension packages -- ones that cal into the C runtime, than it is for application code. In short -- fire up 2.6.5, and code away -- I'm quite confident you will be supported as you move forward. How far away is Python 3 from being the main branch of the language? Are we talking another year? 2? 5? I'm going to guess about 2 years until it's the first choice for new projects, and 5 or more before most projects have ported to it -- and that is a totally uneducated guess! In part, due to the fact that packaging seems to be trickier for people to figure out with py2app than with py2exe I have gotten that impression. I've always found py2app to be easier to use, actually. The only thing really missing once that is done is a port of a good cross-platform UI library, such as wxWidgets, so that cross-platform apps can be developed easily. yup -- for me, I think wx will be the last one I rely on to get ported. Oh well. It's a big package! -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception chris.bar...@noaa.gov ___ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/Pythonmac-SIG
Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] Which version to use??
Rodney Somerstein wrote: > At 11:17 AM -0700 5/25/10, Christopher Barker wrote: >> Honestly, I don't know if the Mac is in any poorer position with >> regard to Python 3 as any other platform. >> >> NONE of the major packages I use have been ported to Py3 on any >> platform: numpy, SciPy, wxPython. Many of those are well supported on >> the Mac, so I don't think there will be any issues there. > > Thanks, Chris. This is the kind of thing I was trying to find out. After > I asked the question I started reading the comp.lang.python newsgroup > and see that lots of people seem to be in the same situation. There are > a fair number of people wanting to USE Python 3.x - that is, develop > WITH Python 3.x. However, the people that make all of the tools for > those of us that want to use them are not porting or are at least not > being very public about their ports. Another problem with porting packages to Python 3 is that Boost.Python or Pyrex are not yet available for Python 3 (Boost.Python is supposed to support Python 3 now, but it didn't work for me). These are used to write extension modules and as long as they are not ready, this will block all the packages that are based on those tools. > development community is a bit problematic. Unless the powers that be > decide to once and for all cease development of the 2.x branch of > Python, I'm not sure that 3.x will ever end up having the support that > it needs in terms of ported packages. If I had the ability to port > something like wxPython, I would definitely do so. By the way, for doing cross-platform GUI development you could also have a look at PyQt. I think there's no binary around, but building for Python 3 went absolutely smooth in my case. > Unfortunately, that > isn't the case. It seems kind of strange to start doing work with 2.7 > when supposedly 3.1.2 is the current version. I'm quite sure that Python 2.7 will still be around for quite a while. There's a growing number of commercial applications that use Python as their scripting language and I would imagine that in their case, it takes even longer until they move to Python 3, so the demand for Python 2.x packages will still be there for a while. Apart from that, they are not entirely different languages, so if you want to give Python a try, you could just as well begin with Python 2.6 or 2.7. If you write your programs with Python 3 in mind, then I think moving to Python 3 eventually won't be such a big issue. You can use the "-3" option when running Python to get warnings when you use stuff that's incompatible with Python 3. Then there's the 2to3 tool that can convert a lot of stuff automatically. If you are using an IDE that has dedicated support for Python, you might also be able to tell it you are writing code for Python 3, so that it warns you when you are writing incompatible code. For example, in Eclipse/PyDev you can set the grammar version that should be used for checking the Python syntax (it constantly yells at me because I'm still not used to print being a function... ;) ) Cheers, - Matthias - ___ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/Pythonmac-SIG
Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] Which version to use??
At 10:08 PM +0200 5/25/10, Ronald Oussoren wrote: Python 3.1.2 works fine on OSX. There is an issue with building extensions on OSX 10.6, but that will be fixed in 3.1.3. PyObjC in the repository works with python 3 and I'm working towards a release. I haven't looked into py2app yet. With some luck it will work without major changes. Good to hear. Thanks for the hard work on PyObjC. Do you have specific plans to look into py2app for Python 3? > The Mac Python community seems pretty small. Given that Python seems to position itself as a major programming and scripting language, it seems rather strange that there is so little effort placed into providing first class support for the second most popular computing platform. I know that various individuals on this list put a tremendous amount of work into porting and supporting various parts of Python on the Mac platform. But what is the overall state of Python here? Especially in regards to Python 3, which seems to definitely be the future of the language. Porting to py3k is an issue throughout the python community, mostly because cleanly porting non-trivial projects takes time. What hasn't helped is that a lot of project depend on setuptools and that didn't supported until pretty recently (and that only through the 'distribute' fork). As far as PyObjC is concerned port to py3k was a lot of work due to C-API changes and because PyObjC tries to provide seemless integration between Python and Cocoa, which means it is pretty sensitive to the large changes between python 2.x and 3.x. It's great to see dedicated people such as yourself continuing this kind of work. Hopefully things will start to fall into place for Python 3.x. I see questions on comp.lang.python and elsewhere from people wanting to use Python 3.x as their main development language. I think many people, such as myself, are reluctant to jump into Python right now. My perception is that 2.x has a limited life span. It seems not to be the best choice to jump into that right now when the 3.x branch of the language itself is where most work seems to be going on. However, as you noted, many packages aren't trivial to port and that seems to be going very slowly. Are you planning on focusing on 3.x from this point forward with only maintenance on the 2.x version of PyObjC? How far away is Python 3 from being the main branch of the language? Are we talking another year? 2? 5? > I have looked at moving into Python several times over the years, but it always seems to be a second class language when it comes to producing programs to run on the Mac. At least outside of various command line tools. Is Python moving toward parity with the Windows and Unix world on the Macintosh? What do you mean? Python on OSX is support as well as it is on Linux and Windows. I'm not trying to denigrate the hard work that you and others put into keeping Python functioning well on the Mac. In part, due to the fact that packaging seems to be trickier for people to figure out with py2app than with py2exe I have gotten that impression. Maybe most people are using py2app with very little trouble and I'm only seeing the problems and requests for help that get reported here. It sounds like for pure Mac development, that a bit of testing and hopefully minor tweaking will be enough to get py2app running well. Once that is done, Python 3 may actually work as a great development language for Mac applications. The only thing really missing once that is done is a port of a good cross-platform UI library, such as wxWidgets, so that cross-platform apps can be developed easily. I also think that another part of the issue is simply that there are many more Windows developers than Mac developers. This means simply that more packages get released for Windows earlier than on the Mac. Similarly there may be more UI libraries and such under Windows because more people write them. For Unix/Linux, I suspect that a larger percentage of the users are actually developers, based on what I've seen in the past. That would tend to lead to more people capable of fixing code and contributing to ports themselves on those platforms. Maybe what I have to resign myself to is that if I want to develop in Python 3 (or any Python for that matter) for desktop applications, I need to be willing to live with any limitations. This is because I don't have the skill to code around those limitations in C. Alternatively I could develop my C and C++ skills as well as Python skills all at the same time so that I can port needed packages. That doesn't seem very realistic. This may just be a matter of the open source nature of Python. -Rodney ___ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/Pythonmac-SIG
Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] Which version to use??
At 11:17 AM -0700 5/25/10, Christopher Barker wrote: Honestly, I don't know if the Mac is in any poorer position with regard to Python 3 as any other platform. NONE of the major packages I use have been ported to Py3 on any platform: numpy, SciPy, wxPython. Many of those are well supported on the Mac, so I don't think there will be any issues there. Thanks, Chris. This is the kind of thing I was trying to find out. After I asked the question I started reading the comp.lang.python newsgroup and see that lots of people seem to be in the same situation. There are a fair number of people wanting to USE Python 3.x - that is, develop WITH Python 3.x. However, the people that make all of the tools for those of us that want to use them are not porting or are at least not being very public about their ports. To someone like me, who is mostly looking in from the outside, Python seems like it has a lot of potential but the fragmentation of the development community is a bit problematic. Unless the powers that be decide to once and for all cease development of the 2.x branch of Python, I'm not sure that 3.x will ever end up having the support that it needs in terms of ported packages. If I had the ability to port something like wxPython, I would definitely do so. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. It seems kind of strange to start doing work with 2.7 when supposedly 3.1.2 is the current version. Does no one other than the maintainers of the language itself want 3.x to succeed? The Mac Python community seems pretty small. There are a LOT of folks using Python on teh Mac -- the community that is pretty small is the community of folks doing mac-specific stuff -- PyObjC, for instance. It getting to be that the the fradction of development that is done for desktop apps is pretty small -- and that that is done is often done with cross-platfrom tools. True. Unfortunately, the cross-platform tools like wxPython don't seem to be there for Python 3. I would love to use Python for some cross-platform application development. Packaging on the Mac, in particular, though, seems to be a bit iffy. Yes, there is on-going work on py2app. However, it seems to mostly be a one person project with work done as available. (A hazard of open source, I guess.) The only folks that care about py2app are folks doing desktop development and the only folks that care about PyObjC are folks doing desktop development for Mac-only applications. If that is what you want to do, then you are right, the community is pretty small -- is there a larger one built around an open-source dynamic language? I have no idea. I'm not sure that there is a larger Mac community built around an open-source dynamic language. However, I'm trying to figure out how viable Python is to develop applications on the Mac. That requires at least py2app for packaging and PyObjC for full access to Mac native controls, from what I can tell. wxPython may be a viable option, but the 3.x support seems MIA. Given that Python seems to position itself as a major programming and scripting language, it seems rather strange that there is so little effort placed into providing first class support for the second most popular computing platform. It does have first class support for scripting, command line stuff, web app development, etc -- one reason the there are so many more users of Python on the Mac than there are folks on this list is that all that stuff "just works". I suppose that is true. Maybe it is just application development where people want native applications for the various platforms that doesn't "just work". It is possible that Python will never be that. I have been hoping for a long time that it would be moving in that direction. That is the main reason for my original questions here. Thanks, -Rodney ___ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/Pythonmac-SIG
Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] Which version to use??
On 25 May, 2010, at 18:18, Rodney Somerstein wrote: > On Tuesday, May 24, 2010, Aahz wrote: >> If you care about the Mac (particularly in terms of being able to use >> PyObjC and/or py2app), stick with 2.x for now. Otherwise, it doesn't >> matter much which exact version of 3.x you use. > > This brings up a question for me as to what the state of Python is on the > Mac. Python 3.x has been a available for quite awhile. I see on Python.org > that 3.1.2 is listed as the current download for the Mac. What exactly is the > current state of this? What doesn't work on the Mac in Python 3 and what are > current plans related to this? Python 3.1.2 works fine on OSX. There is an issue with building extensions on OSX 10.6, but that will be fixed in 3.1.3. PyObjC in the repository works with python 3 and I'm working towards a release. I haven't looked into py2app yet. With some luck it will work without major changes. > > The Mac Python community seems pretty small. Given that Python seems to > position itself as a major programming and scripting language, it seems > rather strange that there is so little effort placed into providing first > class support for the second most popular computing platform. I know that > various individuals on this list put a tremendous amount of work into porting > and supporting various parts of Python on the Mac platform. But what is the > overall state of Python here? Especially in regards to Python 3, which seems > to definitely be the future of the language. Porting to py3k is an issue throughout the python community, mostly because cleanly porting non-trivial projects takes time. What hasn't helped is that a lot of project depend on setuptools and that didn't supported until pretty recently (and that only through the 'distribute' fork). As far as PyObjC is concerned port to py3k was a lot of work due to C-API changes and because PyObjC tries to provide seemless integration between Python and Cocoa, which means it is pretty sensitive to the large changes between python 2.x and 3.x. > > I have looked at moving into Python several times over the years, but it > always seems to be a second class language when it comes to producing > programs to run on the Mac. At least outside of various command line tools. > Is Python moving toward parity with the Windows and Unix world on the > Macintosh? What do you mean? Python on OSX is support as well as it is on Linux and Windows. Ronald smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/Pythonmac-SIG
Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] Which version to use??
Rodney Somerstein wrote: If you care about the Mac (particularly in terms of being able to use PyObjC and/or py2app), stick with 2.x for now. Otherwise, it doesn't matter much which exact version of 3.x you use. This brings up a question for me as to what the state of Python is on the Mac. Python 3.x has been a available for quite awhile. I see on Python.org that 3.1.2 is listed as the current download for the Mac. What exactly is the current state of this? What doesn't work on the Mac in Python 3 and what are current plans related to this? Honestly, I don't know if the Mac is in any poorer position with regard to Python 3 as any other platform. NONE of the major packages I use have been ported to Py3 on any platform: numpy, SciPy, wxPython. Many of those are well supported on the Mac, so I don't think there will be any issues there. The Mac Python community seems pretty small. There are a LOT of folks using Python on teh Mac -- the community that is pretty small is the community of folks doing mac-specific stuff -- PyObjC, for instance. It getting to be that the the fradction of development that is done for desktop apps is pretty small -- and that that is done is often done with cross-platfrom tools. The only folks that care about py2app are folks doing desktop development and the only folks that care about PyObjC are folks doing desktop development for Mac-only applications. If that is what you want to do, then you are right, the community is pretty small -- is there a larger one built around an open-source dynamic language? I have no idea. Given that Python seems to position itself as a major programming and scripting language, it seems rather strange that there is so little effort placed into providing first class support for the second most popular computing platform. It does have first class support for scripting, command line stuff, web app development, etc -- one reason the there are so many more users of Python on the Mac than there are folks on this list is that all that stuff "just works". -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception chris.bar...@noaa.gov ___ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/Pythonmac-SIG
Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] Which version to use??
On Tuesday, May 24, 2010, Aahz wrote: If you care about the Mac (particularly in terms of being able to use PyObjC and/or py2app), stick with 2.x for now. Otherwise, it doesn't matter much which exact version of 3.x you use. This brings up a question for me as to what the state of Python is on the Mac. Python 3.x has been a available for quite awhile. I see on Python.org that 3.1.2 is listed as the current download for the Mac. What exactly is the current state of this? What doesn't work on the Mac in Python 3 and what are current plans related to this? The Mac Python community seems pretty small. Given that Python seems to position itself as a major programming and scripting language, it seems rather strange that there is so little effort placed into providing first class support for the second most popular computing platform. I know that various individuals on this list put a tremendous amount of work into porting and supporting various parts of Python on the Mac platform. But what is the overall state of Python here? Especially in regards to Python 3, which seems to definitely be the future of the language. I have looked at moving into Python several times over the years, but it always seems to be a second class language when it comes to producing programs to run on the Mac. At least outside of various command line tools. Is Python moving toward parity with the Windows and Unix world on the Macintosh? Thanks, -Rodney ___ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/Pythonmac-SIG
Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] Which version to use??
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 15:08, Aahz wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010, Jan Erik Mostr?m wrote: >> >> I thought I would play around with Python 3.x a bit and would like to >> ask if you have any recommendations if I should use the version >> available at python.org or the one available at activestate? > > If you care about the Mac (particularly in terms of being able to use > PyObjC and/or py2app), stick with 2.x for now. Otherwise, it doesn't > matter much which exact version of 3.x you use. OK, thanks (I'm just using it to play around and to see what's new) - jem ___ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/Pythonmac-SIG
Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] Which version to use??
On Mon, May 24, 2010, Jan Erik Mostr?m wrote: > > I thought I would play around with Python 3.x a bit and would like to > ask if you have any recommendations if I should use the version > available at python.org or the one available at activestate? If you care about the Mac (particularly in terms of being able to use PyObjC and/or py2app), stick with 2.x for now. Otherwise, it doesn't matter much which exact version of 3.x you use. -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n nx prgrmmng. ___ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/Pythonmac-SIG
[Pythonmac-SIG] Which version to use??
I thought I would play around with Python 3.x a bit and would like to ask if you have any recommendations if I should use the version available at python.org or the one available at activestate? ___ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/Pythonmac-SIG
