On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> This thread hasn't been productive for a really long time now.
I agree. The constructive way would be to concentrate on looking for
causes. I don't know if there is a discipline of "programming language
usability" in computer science, bu
On 12/16/2014 08:18 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 10:48:07 -0800, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Besides, using iteritems() and friends is generally a premature
> optimization, unless you know you'll have very large containers.
> Creating a list is cheap.
[...]
No. A premature optimi
On 17 December 2014 at 10:45, Chris McDonough wrote:
> On 12/16/2014 03:09 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 16, 2014, at 02:15 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
>>
>>> While he doesn't explicitly say so, I got the distinct impression reading
>>> his recent blog post that he supports one source, not fo
On 12/16/2014 03:09 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Dec 16, 2014, at 02:15 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
While he doesn't explicitly say so, I got the distinct impression reading
his recent blog post that he supports one source, not forked sources.
I've ported a fair bit of code, both pure-Python and
This thread hasn't been productive for a really long time now.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> On 12/16/2014 12:31 PM, Brian Curtin wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> >>>
> >>> IM
On Dec 16, 2014, at 02:15 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
>While he doesn't explicitly say so, I got the distinct impression reading
>his recent blog post that he supports one source, not forked sources.
I've ported a fair bit of code, both pure-Python and C extensions, both
libraries and applications.
On 12/16/2014 12:31 PM, Brian Curtin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>>
>>> IMO, you should consider forking your library code for Python2 and
>>> Python3.
>>
>> I don't get the idea that Brett Cannon agrees
On 12/16/2014 11:25 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> What Antoine said is not patently false [...]
What Antoine said was:
> Unless you have a lot of network-facing code, writing 2/3
> compatible code should actually be quite pedestrian.
Or, to paraphrase slightly, "if you aren't writing network code
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>
> How about "run 3to2 at installation time?"
In theory, yes, but that's not a fork either.
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-
Brian Curtin :
> I'm a few inches shorter than Brett, but having done several sizable
> ports, dual-source has never even on the table. I would prefer the
> "run 2to3 at installation time" option before maintaining two versions
> (which I do not prefer at all in reality).
How about "run 3to2 at i
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Skip Montanaro
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>
>> IMO, you should consider forking your library code for Python2 and
>> Python3.
>
>
> I don't get the idea that Brett Cannon agrees with you:
>
> http://nothingbutsnark.svbtle.co
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>
> IMO, you should consider forking your library code for Python2 and
> Python3.
>
I don't get the idea that Brett Cannon agrees with you:
http://nothingbutsnark.svbtle.com/commentary-on-getting-your-code-to-run-on-python-23
While he doesn
Mark Roberts :
> it's outright insulting to be told my complaints about writing 2/3
> compatible code are invalid on the basis of "premature optimization".
IMO, you should consider forking your library code for Python2 and
Python3. The multidialect code will look unidiomatic for each dialect.
Whe
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 19:25:35 +
Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> As for the changing of the default in Python 3, that's because we decided
> to make iterators the default everywhere. And that was mostly for
> consistency, not performance reasons. It was also for flexibility as you
> can go from an iter
On Tue Dec 16 2014 at 2:05:28 PM Mark Roberts wrote:
> Perhaps you are correct, and I will attempt to remain more constructive on
> the topic (despite it being an *incredibly* frustrating experience).
> However, my point remains: this is a patently false thing that is being
> parroted throughout
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 10:48:07 -0800, Mark Roberts wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > Iterating accross a dictionary doesn't need compatibility shims. It's
> > dead simple in all Python versions:
> >
> > $ python2
> > Python 2.7.8 (default, Oct 20 2014, 15:05:19
Perhaps you are correct, and I will attempt to remain more constructive on
the topic (despite it being an *incredibly* frustrating experience).
However, my point remains: this is a patently false thing that is being
parroted throughout the Python community, and it's outright insulting to be
told my
Mark, your tone is no longer constructive and is hurting your case in
arguing for anything. Please take it down a notch.
On Tue Dec 16 2014 at 1:48:59 PM Mark Roberts wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Antoine Pitrou
> wrote:
>>
>> Iterating accross a dictionary doesn't need compatibilit
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Iterating accross a dictionary doesn't need compatibility shims. It's
> dead simple in all Python versions:
>
> $ python2
> Python 2.7.8 (default, Oct 20 2014, 15:05:19)
> [GCC 4.9.1] on linux2
> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "lic
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
[...]
> Barry, Petr, any of the other folks working on distro level C extension
> ports, perhaps one of you would be willing to consider an update to the C
> extension porting guide to be more in line with Brett's latest version of
> the Python
On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:08:17 -0800
Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> So, I'm the guy that used the "hate" word in relation to writing 2/3
> compliant code. And really, as a library maintainer/writer I do hate
> writing 2/3 compatible code. Having 4 future imports in every file and
> being forced to use a c
On 16 December 2014 at 16:03, Ben Finney wrote:
> Alex Gaynor writes:
>
>> Ben Finney benfinney.id.au> writes:
>>
>> > Rather, the claim is that *if* one's code base doesn't migrate to
>> > Python 3, it will be decreasingly supported by the PSF and the
>> > Python community at large.
>>
>> The P
On 16 December 2014 at 13:08, Mark Roberts wrote:
> The whole situation is made worse because I *KNOW* that Python 3 is a better
> language than Python 2, but that it doesn't *MATTER* because Python 2 is
> what people are - and will be - using for the foreseeable future. It's
> impractical to drop
Alex Gaynor writes:
> Ben Finney benfinney.id.au> writes:
>
> > Rather, the claim is that *if* one's code base doesn't migrate to
> > Python 3, it will be decreasingly supported by the PSF and the
> > Python community at large.
>
> The PSF doesn't support any versions of Python. We have effectiv
Ben Finney benfinney.id.au> writes:
>
> Rather, the claim is that *if* one's code base doesn't migrate to Python
> 3, it will be decreasingly supported by the PSF and the Python community
> at large.
>
The PSF doesn't support any versions of Python. We have effectively no
involvement in the de
Mark Roberts writes:
> So, I'm the guy that used the "hate" word in relation to writing 2/3
> compliant code. And really, as a library maintainer/writer I do hate
> writing 2/3 compatible code.
You're unlikely to get disagreement on that. I certainly concur.
The catch is, at the moment it's bet
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Chris Barker
wrote:
> Are you primarily writing packages for others to use? if so, then yes. But
> I wonder how many people are in that camp? Don't most of us spend most of
> our time writing our own purpose-built code?
>
> That might be a nice thing to see in a
On Dec 14, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>Barry, Petr, any of the other folks working on distro level C extension
>ports, perhaps one of you would be willing to consider an update to the C
>extension porting guide to be more in line with Brett's latest version of
>the Python level porting
> On Dec 15, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
>
> OK, this seems weird to me:
>
> For what it’s worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and
> that’s
> with the “easy” subset of 2.6+ and either 3.2+ or 3.3+)
>
> ouch.
>
> However the way it "used" to work
> is that the n
OK, this seems weird to me:
For what it’s worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and
> that’s
> with the “easy” subset of 2.6+ and either 3.2+ or 3.3+)
ouch.
> However the way it "used" to work
> is that the newest version, with all the new features, would quickly become
> the
On 13 Dec 2014 05:19, "Petr Viktorin" wrote:
>
> Also keep in mind that not all Python libraries are on PyPI.
> For non-Python projects with Python bindings (think video players,
> OpenCV, systemd, Samba), distribution via PyPI doesn't make much
> sense. And since the Python bindings are usually s
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 10:17:59 -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> >For what itâs worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and
> >thatâs with the âeasyâ subset of 2.6+ and either 3.2+ or 3.3+) and
> >doing so
> >does make the la
@python.org<mailto:python-dev@python.org>
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>For what it’s worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and
>that’s with the “easy” subset of 2.6+ and e
> On Dec 13, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>> For what it’s worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and
>> that’s with the “easy” subset of 2.6+ and either 3.2+ or 3.3+) and doing so
>> does make the language far l
On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>For what it’s worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and
>that’s with the “easy” subset of 2.6+ and either 3.2+ or 3.3+) and doing so
>does make the language far less fun for me than when I was writing 2.x only
>code.
For myself,
On 13 December 2014 at 16:28, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> First of all, it's essentially the route that Python itself took and the side
>> effects of that is essentially what is making things less-fun for me to write
>> Python. Doing the same t
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> First of all, it's essentially the route that Python itself took and the side
> effects of that is essentially what is making things less-fun for me to write
> Python. Doing the same to the users of the things I write would make me feel
> bad
> On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:40 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> So that's basically it, lowest common demoniator programming where it's hard
>> to
>> look at the future and see anything but the same (or similar) language subset
>> that I'm cur
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> So that's basically it, lowest common demoniator programming where it's hard
> to
> look at the future and see anything but the same (or similar) language subset
> that I'm currently using. This is especially frustrating when you see other
>
> On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 12, 2014, at 11:55 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:24:15AM -0800, Mark Roberts wrote:
>>> So, I'm more than aware of how to write Python 2/3 compatible code. I've
>>> ported 10-20 libraries to Pyth
> On Dec 12, 2014, at 11:55 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:24:15AM -0800, Mark Roberts wrote:
>> So, I'm more than aware of how to write Python 2/3 compatible code. I've
>> ported 10-20 libraries to Python 3 and write Python 2/3 compatible code at
>> work. I'm also awa
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:24:15AM -0800, Mark Roberts wrote:
> So, I'm more than aware of how to write Python 2/3 compatible code. I've
> ported 10-20 libraries to Python 3 and write Python 2/3 compatible code at
> work. I'm also aware of how much writing 2/3 compatible code makes me hate
> Python
On 12/12/2014 1:24 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
However, my point was that just because the core libraries by usage are
*starting* to roll out Python 3 support doesn't mean that things are
"easy" or "convenient" yet.
...
I suppose what I'm saying is that the long tail of libraries is far more
valua
On Dec 12, 2014, at 08:07 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>If anyone is wondering why their favorite Linux distribution is stuck with
>Python 2 – well, I can only speak for Fedora, but nowadays most of what's
>left are CPython bindings. No pylint --py3k or 2to3 will help there...
It's true that some of
Also keep in mind that not all Python libraries are on PyPI.
For non-Python projects with Python bindings (think video players,
OpenCV, systemd, Samba), distribution via PyPI doesn't make much
sense. And since the Python bindings are usually second-class
citizens, the porting doesn't have a high pr
On 2014-12-11, 14:47 GMT, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> I still think the only *real* obstacle remains the lack of
> important packages such as twisted, gevent and pika which
> haven't been ported yet.
And unwise decisions of some vendors (like, unfortunately my
belvoed employer with RHEL-7) not t
So, I'm more than aware of how to write Python 2/3 compatible code. I've
ported 10-20 libraries to Python 3 and write Python 2/3 compatible code at
work. I'm also aware of how much writing 2/3 compatible code makes me hate
Python as a language. It'll be a happy day when one of the two languages
die
2014-12-11 15:47 GMT+01:00 Giampaolo Rodola' :
> I still think the only *real* obstacle remains the lack of important
> packages such as twisted, gevent and pika which haven't been ported yet.
twisted core works on python 3, right now. Contribute to Twisted if
you want to port more code... Or star
On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 3:14:42 PM Dan Stromberg wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> > I disagree. I know there's a huge focus on The Big Libraries (and
> wholesale
> > migration is all but impossible without them), but the long tail of
> > libraries is still incredibl
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> I disagree. I know there's a huge focus on The Big Libraries (and wholesale
> migration is all but impossible without them), but the long tail of
> libraries is still incredibly important. It's like saying that migrating the
> top 10 Perl lib
I disagree. I know there's a huge focus on The Big Libraries (and wholesale
migration is all but impossible without them), but the long tail of
libraries is still incredibly important. It's like saying that migrating
the top 10 Perl libraries to Perl 6 would allow people to completely ignore
all of
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Bruno Cauet wrote:
> Hi all,
> Last year a survey was conducted on python 2 and 3 usage.
> Here is the 2014 edition, slightly updated (from 9 to 11 questions).
> It should not take you more than 1 minute to fill. I would be pleased if
> you took that time.
>
> Her
Remarks heard & form updated.
Nathaniel, I'm not sure about that: even if the code is 2- and 3-compatible
you'll pick one runtime. 2 others questions now mention writing polyglot
code.
By the way I published the survey on HN, /r/programming & /r/python:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8730156
On 10 Dec 2014 17:16, "Ian Cordasco" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 10, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Bruno Cauet wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> > Last year a survey was conducted on python 2 and 3 usage.
> > Here is the 2014 edition, slightly updated (from 9 to
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> On Dec 10, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Bruno Cauet wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> Last year a survey was conducted on python 2 and 3 usage.
> Here is the 2014 edition, slightly updated (from 9 to 11 questions).
> It should not take you more than 1 minute to
> On Dec 10, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Bruno Cauet wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> Last year a survey was conducted on python 2 and 3 usage.
> Here is the 2014 edition, slightly updated (from 9 to 11 questions).
> It should not take you more than 1 minute to fill. I would be pleased if you
> took that time.
>
>
Hi all,
Last year a survey was conducted on python 2 and 3 usage.
Here is the 2014 edition, slightly updated (from 9 to 11 questions).
It should not take you more than 1 minute to fill. I would be pleased if
you took that time.
Here's the url: http://goo.gl/forms/tDTcm8UzB3
I'll publish the result
57 matches
Mail list logo
