Hey,
> Python 3.x. I believe your fear is just a knee jerk reaction to the notion
> that there will be some stated incompatibilities between 2.x and 3.x without
> having done any investigation of the transition process. Nobody is forcing
> you to do anything right now or completely abandon your
Jeff> My post was entitled "Python 3.0 unfit for serious work", you just
Jeff> indicated that the Linux distros will agree with me, in order to
Jeff> be taken seriously, the distros will have to include 2.x python
Jeff> for a very long time. If 3.0 and 2.x h
On Feb 21, 1:44 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
>
> Note that I believe it will be many years, perhaps even a decade, before
> "python" on a Unix system starts up Python 3.0.
That's a pretty safe bet considering that the factory-installed
"python" on my Linux system is still 1.x and you run "p
On Feb 21, 8:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't know the specifics of your app, but why does everyone insist
> that they need to use the 'system' python?
Hey Grant, don't worry it's not a rant. A completely valid question.
Again it's a problem of dependency management ... one of the thing
On Feb 20, 9:04 pm, "Jeff Templon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yo,
>
> Bjorn, I am not sure I see why my post is bull crap. I think all you
> are doing is agreeing with me. My post was entitled "Python 3.0 unfit
> for serious work", you just indicated th
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jay Tee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>If backwards compatibility is not a consideration, then it would be a
>miracle if there were no problems.
Backwards compatibility is a consideration AND there will be problems.
That is, the goal of 3.0 is to lower the priority o
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:19:26 -0800, John Nagle wrote:
> Well, something faster really should take over. It's a bit
> embarassing that the main implementation of Python is still a
> pure interpreter. Even Javascript has a JIT compiler now.
> And it's tiny, under 1MB.
Python has a compiler,
On Feb 21, 1:41 am, "BJörn Lindqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ citing me ]
> "if 2.4 code doesn't run on 3.0, it's rather likely that strong
> pressure will be applied to port *away* from Python into something
> less capricious."
>
> Who are these people that are applying the strong pressure?
John Nagle wrote:
> It's a bit
> embarassing that the main implementation of Python is still a
> pure interpreter. Even Javascript has a JIT compiler now.
Pure interpreted Python has always seemed more responsive
to me than any Java application I've tried to use. So I
can't help feeling that this
Paul Rubin wrote:
> John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> There's always the possiblity that Python 3 won't happen. Look at
>>what happened with Perl 6. That's been talked about for
>>seven years now. The user base just wasn't interested.
>>Perl 5 was good enough, and users migrated t
Steven Bethard wrote:
> So as a Python programmer, the path is clear. As soon as possible, you
> should make your code compatible with Python 3.0.
John Nagle wrote:
> There's always the possiblity that Python 3 won't happen.
That's not really a possibility. Unlike Perl 6, Python 3 is not a
John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's always the possiblity that Python 3 won't happen. Look at
> what happened with Perl 6. That's been talked about for
> seven years now. The user base just wasn't interested.
> Perl 5 was good enough, and users migrated to PHP for the
> little
Steven Bethard wrote:
> So as a Python programmer, the path is clear. As soon as possible, you
> should make your code compatible with Python 3.0.
There's always the possiblity that Python 3 won't happen. Look at
what happened with Perl 6. That's been talked about for
seven years now. Th
On 2/20/07, Jeff Templon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bjorn, I am not sure I see why my post is bull crap. I think all you
> are doing is agreeing with me. My post was entitled "Python 3.0 unfit
> for serious work", you just indicated that the Linux distros will
> a
Jay Tee wrote:
>
> Paul, thanks for this, I didn't realize the scope of the situation. I
> agree with your assessment to the extent that I understand what the
> whole python 3.0 thing is about.
I don't know if I've delimited the scope of any situation, really.
However...
[...]
> The fact that t
Jay Tee wrote:
> Let's see if I can scare up something I wrote about ten years ago on a
> now-dead language that I really wanted to use (wound up sticking with
> python instead because "it was supported" ;-)
>
> ===
> to figure out how to work things. The fact that there are t
Hi,
Paul, thanks for this, I didn't realize the scope of the situation. I
agree with your assessment to the extent that I understand what the
whole python 3.0 thing is about.
Let's see if I can scare up something I wrote about ten years ago on a
now-dead language that I really wanted to use (wou
yo,
Bjorn, I am not sure I see why my post is bull crap. I think all you
are doing is agreeing with me. My post was entitled "Python 3.0 unfit
for serious work", you just indicated that the Linux distros will
agree with me, in order to be taken seriously, the distros will have
to i
Steven Bethard wrote:
>
> Well, Python 2.4 code will work on Python 2.6 and 2.7 so just because
> your code isn't yet compatible with Python 3.0 doesn't mean you should
> give up on Python.
Perhaps the most important concern in the context of Python 3.0 is
what the term "Python" will come to mean
Hi,
On Feb 20, 8:59 pm, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You snipped the rest of that comment:
>
> "It's not even clear yet that your average 2.6 code will work on 3.0 --
> though there's a pretty large contingent trying to make this true."
Thanks for pointing this out. I voted for th
What a load of bull crap. Python is one of the simplest packages to
have multiple version of installed. When Python 3.0 is released, all
Linux distros will acquire a symlink at /usr/bin/python2 pointing to
the latest Python 2.x version installed. Or something equivalent.
Rest assured that Linux dis
Jay Tee wrote:
> Yo,
>
> On Feb 16, 6:07 am, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Python 3.0 is determined not to be hampered by backwards incompatibility
>> concerns. It's not even clear yet that your average 2.6 code will work
>
> Then Python is pretty much determined to remove itself f
Yo,
On Feb 16, 6:07 am, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Python 3.0 is determined not to be hampered by backwards incompatibility
> concerns. It's not even clear yet that your average 2.6 code will work
Then Python is pretty much determined to remove itself from
consideration
from vari
23 matches
Mail list logo
