On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:26 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/7/2010 5:29 AM, geremy condra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/5/2010 9:00 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchu
I port
2010/7/8 Michele Simionato :
> On Jul 7, 10:55 pm, Carl Banks wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 1:31 am, Paul McGuire wrote:
>> > I just
>> > couldn't get through on the python-dev list that I couldn't just
>> > upgrade my code to 2.6 and then use 2to3 to keep in step across the
>> > 2-3 chasm, as this would l
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:10:57 -0700, Brendan Abel wrote:
> The entire fact that 3.x was *designed* to be incompatible should tell
> you that supporting 2.x and 3.x with a single code base is a bad idea,
> except for the very smallest of projects.
I don't see that follows at all. If the incompatibi
"Martin v. Loewis" writes:
> > The point, one more time with feeling, is that the incompatibilities
> > between 2.x and 3.x will *increase* over time.
>
> I think this is unfounded, and actually false.
Since many other people have responded with similar sentiments, I can
only think I must have b
> I just
> couldn't get through on the python-dev list that I couldn't just
> upgrade my code to 2.6 and then use 2to3 to keep in step across the
> 2-3 chasm, as this would leave behind my faithful pre-2.6 users.
Not sure whom you had been talking to. But I would have tried to explain
that you don
> The point, one more time with feeling, is that the incompatibilities
> between 2.x and 3.x will *increase* over time.
I think this is unfounded, and actually false.
Instead, the incompatibilities will *decrease* over the next few years.
Suppose you support 2.x and 3.x from a single code base. T
> Python 3.x will continue to change. The incompatibilities between 3.x
> and 2.x will only become more numerous. If your goal is to support
> 2.x, and 3.x, you'd be best supporting them separately.
I don't think that's a particularly good approach. Having a single code
base for both likely redu
On Jul 7, 10:55 pm, Carl Banks wrote:
> On Jul 7, 1:31 am, Paul McGuire wrote:
> > I just
> > couldn't get through on the python-dev list that I couldn't just
> > upgrade my code to 2.6 and then use 2to3 to keep in step across the
> > 2-3 chasm, as this would leave behind my faithful pre-2.6 user
Am 07.07.2010 23:10, schrieb Brendan Abel:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
significant userbase IMHO. As suc
On 7/7/2010 10:49 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
Yes, that's what I meant. Python 3 is deliberately under no obligation
to support code that works in Python 2. If something needs fixing, and
that fix would involve breaking Python 2 code, then that's not a
consideration any more.
Code that works in 3.1
Dear Paul McGuire:
Thank you very much for these notes!
See also a few other notes:
Michael Foord:
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/weblog/arch_d7_2010_03_20.shtml#e1167
Ned Batchelder:
http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/200910/running_the_same_code_on_python_2x_and_3x.html
I was wondering if it
On 7/7/2010 9:14 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
The point, one more time with feeling, is that the incompatibilities
between 2.x and 3.x will *increase* over time.
For the purpose of maintaining least-common-denominator multi-version
code, it is only deletions and semantic changes that matter. Feature
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> geremy condra writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Ben Finney
>> wrote:
>> > [backward-]incompatibilities between 2.x and 3.x will *increase*
>> > over time.
>>
>> ...and? I don't get to use features from 2.7, why would I expect to
>>
Ben Finney writes:
>> On the other hand, the door appears closed for Python 3 adding more
>> stuff that breaks Python 2 code.
>
> What gives you that idea? Can you reference a specific statement from
> the PYthon developers that says that?
It's just logic. As I understand it, future versions of
On 7/7/2010 4:31 AM, Paul McGuire wrote:
[snip interesting report on how Paul suppost pyparsing for 2.3 to 3.1]
Thank you for this.
Do you think such cross-version support would have been easier or harder
if the major changes and deletions in 3.0 has been spread over several
versions, such as
geremy condra writes:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > [backward-]incompatibilities between 2.x and 3.x will *increase*
> > over time.
>
> ...and? I don't get to use features from 2.7, why would I expect to
> use features from 3.3?
Conversely, why would you support Python
On 7/7/2010 5:29 AM, geremy condra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/5/2010 9:00 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchu
I ported two pure C extensions from 2 to 3 and was even
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Carl Banks wrote:
> On Jul 7, 1:31 am, Paul McGuire wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 3:30 am, David Cournapeau wrote:> On Tue, Jul
>> 6, 2010 at 4:30 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
>>
>> > One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
>> > works on 2.x
Paul Rubin writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
> > The point, one more time with feeling, is that the incompatibilities
> > between 2.x and 3.x will *increase* over time.
>
> The issue is less the "incompatibilities" than the -backwards-
> incompatibilities.
Yes, that's what I meant. Python 3 is delib
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> geremy condra writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Brendan Abel <007bren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Python 3.x will continue to change. The incompatibilities between
>> > 3.x and 2.x will only become more numerous. If your goal is to
>>
Ben Finney writes:
> The point, one more time with feeling, is that the incompatibilities
> between 2.x and 3.x will *increase* over time.
The issue is less the "incompatibilities" than the -backwards-
incompatibilities. Yes, Python 3 may introduce forward
incompatibilities by adding features ab
On Jul 7, 2:10 pm, Brendan Abel <007bren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
> > > > works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
> > > > versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
> > > > si
On Jul 5, 1:34 am, sturlamolden wrote:
> On 5 Jul, 01:58, John Nagle wrote:
>
> > Exactly.
>
> > The "incompatible with all extension modules I need" part
> > is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
> > identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to
> > Py
geremy condra wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Brendan Abel <007bren...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 7, 3:00 pm, MRAB wrote:
Brendan Abel wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions b
geremy condra writes:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Brendan Abel <007bren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Python 3.x will continue to change. The incompatibilities between
> > 3.x and 2.x will only become more numerous. If your goal is to
> > support 2.x, and 3.x, you'd be best supporting them sep
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Brendan Abel <007bren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 3:00 pm, MRAB wrote:
>> Brendan Abel wrote:
>> One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
>> works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
>> version
On Jul 7, 3:00 pm, MRAB wrote:
> Brendan Abel wrote:
> One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
> works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
> versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
> significant us
John Nagle writes:
>Python 3 is a nice cleanup of some legacy syntax issues. But
> that's just not enough. Perl 6 is a nice cleanup of Perl 5,
Eh, I wouldn't call Perl 6 a "nice cleanup". It's much better to
consider it a new language with roots in Perl 5 (amongst others). Or
to quote from
Brendan Abel wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
significant userbase IMHO. As such, the idea of running the python 3
warni
> > > One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
> > > works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
> > > versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
> > > significant userbase IMHO. As such, the idea of running the python 3
> >
On Jul 7, 1:31 am, Paul McGuire wrote:
> On Jul 6, 3:30 am, David Cournapeau wrote:> On Tue, Jul
> 6, 2010 at 4:30 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
>
> > One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
> > works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
> > ve
In article <5325a$4c349b5b$4275d90a$27...@fuse.net>,
Kevin Walzer wrote:
> That's decision for each business to make. My guess is that many
> businesses won't upgrade for some time, until the major
> libraries/modules support Python 3. I don't plan to move to Python 3 for
> at least a couple
On 7/2/10 3:07 PM, John Nagle wrote:
That's the real issue, not parentheses on the "print" statement.
Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster.
It doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6. There's no
"killer app" for it. End of life for Python 2.x is many years aw
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 7/5/2010 9:00 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchuk
>
I ported two pure C extensions from 2 to 3 and was even able to keep a
single
On 07/07/2010 10:58 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Paul McGuire writes:
>> is completely forward and backward incompatible. The workaround is to
>> rewrite as:
>>
>> except ExceptionType:
>> ex = sys.exc_info()[0]
>>
>> which works just fine in 2.x and 3.x.
>
> Are you sure? I wonder if th
Paul McGuire writes:
> is completely forward and backward incompatible. The workaround is to
> rewrite as:
>
> except ExceptionType:
> ex = sys.exc_info()[0]
>
> which works just fine in 2.x and 3.x.
Are you sure? I wonder if there might be some race condition that could
make it fai
On Jul 6, 3:30 am, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:30 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
>
> One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
> works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
> versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most p
On Jul 2, 4:07 pm, John Nagle wrote:
> David Cournapeau wrote:
> > I think one point which needs to be emphasized more is what does
> > python 3 bring to people. The" what's new in python 3 page" gives
> > the impression that python 3 is about removing cruft. That's a very
> > poor argument to pu
On Jul 6, 12:37 am, Terry Reedy wrote:
> In his post on this thread, Martin Loewis volunteered to list what he
> knows from psycopg2 if someone else will edit.
Now we are getting somewhere! This is the community spirit i want to
see. You don't have to give much people, every little bit counts. B
On 07/06/2010 07:17 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> docs.python.org / dev/3.0/howto/cporting.html
http://docs.python.org/py3k/howto/cporting.html
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 7/6/2010 11:19 AM, Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
2010/7/6 David Cournapeau:
Or is there no change at the C level? That would make things easy.
There are quite a few, but outside of the big pain point of
strings/byte/unicode which is present at python level as well, a lot
of the issues are not so
2010/7/6 David Cournapeau :
>> Or is there no change at the C level? That would make things easy.
>
> There are quite a few, but outside of the big pain point of
> strings/byte/unicode which is present at python level as well, a lot
> of the issues are not so big (and even simpler to deal with). F
On Jul 5, 2:56 am, John Nagle wrote:
> The Twisted team has a list of what they need:
>
> "http://stackoverflow.com/questions/172306/how-are-you-planning-on-han...";
Here's what I got from a quick google review of the below four
projects and python 3.
> * Zope Interface
Here's a blog fro
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:30:34 +0800
David Cournapeau wrote:
> One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
> works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
> versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
Yes, PyGreSQL officially suppo
Steven D'Aprano, 05.07.2010 08:31:
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:34:04 -0700, sturlamolden wrote:
Using Python 2.x for new
projects is not advisable (at least many will think so), and using 3.x
is not possible. What to do? It's not a helpful situation for Python.
That's pure FUD.
Python 2.7 will be
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:30 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
> Terry Reedy wrote:
>> Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
>> Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
>> or something else that they need?
>
> How about a basic how-to document? I maintain PyG
On 7/5/2010 9:00 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchuk
I ported two pure C extensions from 2 to 3 and was even able to keep a
single C codebase. I'd be willing to contribute my experiences to a
document
s
On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchuk
wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 4:30 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy wrote:
Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
Lack of developer interest/time/ab
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2010, at 4:30 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
>> Terry Reedy wrote:
>>> Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
>>> Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
>>> or something else that they n
On Jul 5, 2010, at 4:30 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy wrote:
Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
or something else that they need?
How about a basic how-to document? I maintain PyGreSQL and would
On 7/5/2010 12:35 PM, Kevin Walzer wrote:
On 7/5/10 2:56 AM, John Nagle wrote:
* PyCrypto
* PyOpenSSL
These, and Mark Pilgrim's feedparser, need to be 3.x compatible before I
can think about Python 3.x.
There's been an attempt to port "feedparser" to 3.0, but
that needed a port of Beaut
Am 05.07.2010 22:30, schrieb D'Arcy J.M. Cain:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
> Terry Reedy wrote:
>> Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
>> Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
>> or something else that they need?
>
> How about a basic how-to document? I maintain PyGreSQL and
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy wrote:
> Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
> Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
> or something else that they need?
How about a basic how-to document? I maintain PyGreSQL and would like
to move it to 3.x right now but I don't even k
On 7/5/10 2:56 AM, John Nagle wrote:
* PyCrypto
* PyOpenSSL
These, and Mark Pilgrim's feedparser, need to be 3.x compatible before I
can think about Python 3.x.
--
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin
http://www.codebykevin.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 7/5/2010 6:04 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
[snip]
I think numpy will work for 3.1 as well
If numpy were released today for 3.1 (or even anytime before 3.2), that
would be great. It would let those waiting for it that it is real and
tha
On 7/5/2010 2:56 AM, John Nagle wrote:
On 7/4/2010 10:44 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
I you have any other ideas about other top blockers, please share them.
The Twisted team has a list of what they need:
"http://stackoverflow.com/questions/172306/how-are-you-planning-on-handling-the-migration-to
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 7/4/2010 7:58 PM, John Nagle wrote:
>
>> The "incompatible with all extension modules I need" part
>> is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
>> identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to
>> Python 3 by majo
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:59:03 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
> Denying that there's a problem does not help.
Nobody is denying that there is a problem, but there are plenty of people
denying that there are any solutions.
The folks doing development of CPython are genuinely interested in
constructive
On 7/4/2010 10:44 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/4/2010 7:58 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The "incompatible with all extension modules I need" part
is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to
Python 3 by major projects with many use
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:34:04 -0700, sturlamolden wrote:
> Using Python 2.x for new
> projects is not advisable (at least many will think so), and using 3.x
> is not possible. What to do? It's not a helpful situation for Python.
That's pure FUD.
Python 2.7 will be supported longer than the normal
On 7/4/2010 7:58 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The "incompatible with all extension modules I need" part
is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to
Python 3 by major projects with many users.
Let me repeat. Last September, if no
On Jul 4, 8:59 pm, John Nagle wrote:
> That's what happens when you
> mismanage an incompatible transition.
+1
> Python has strong competition. In the last two years,
> Javascript has become much faster, PHP is getting a JIT compiler,
> Lua, as recently mentioned, is getting up there with
On 7/4/2010 5:34 PM, sturlamolden wrote:
On 5 Jul, 01:58, John Nagle wrote:
Exactly.
The "incompatible with all extension modules I need" part is the
problem right now. A good first step would be to identify the top
5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to Python 3 by major
projects with
On 5 Jul, 01:58, John Nagle wrote:
> Exactly.
>
> The "incompatible with all extension modules I need" part
> is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
> identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to
> Python 3 by major projects with many users.
The big da
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 16:58:04 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
> The "incompatible with all extension modules I need" part
> is the problem right now. A good first step would be to identify the
> top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to Python 3 by major
> projects with many users.
Are you vo
On 7/4/2010 1:20 PM, sturlamolden wrote:
On 2 Jul, 21:07, John Nagle wrote:
http://jens.mooseyard.com/2008/12/python-30-whats-the-point/
He is right on. The only thing Python 3k will do for me, is break all
my code and be incompatible with all extension modules I need. "What's
the point?" in
On 2 Jul, 21:07, John Nagle wrote:
> http://jens.mooseyard.com/2008/12/python-30-whats-the-point/
He is right on. The only thing Python 3k will do for me, is break all
my code and be incompatible with all extension modules I need. "What's
the point?" indeed.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 09:48:09 -0700
John Nagle wrote:
> The base Python 3.1 is installed there, but without any modules.
We install modules as clients ask for them. No one has yet requested a
Python 3 module.
> On a hosting service, a raw Python with none of those modules isn't
> very us
On 7/3/2010 5:46 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:40:34 -0700
John Nagle wrote:
Not according to Vex's published package list:
http://www.vex.net/info/tech/pkglist/
Hold on. That *is* the generated list and Python 3.1 is on it. We
have both 2.6 and 3.1. The
On 03 Jul 2010 14:24:49 GMT
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Pfft! Facts! You can prove anything you like with facts!
Argumentum ad Dragnet?
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/| and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082)(e
In article ,
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:40:34 -0700
>John Nagle wrote:
>>
>> "vex.net" isn't exactly a major hosting service.
>
>OK, I'll give you that. It is on the backbone of the net at 151 Front
>Street in Toronto, has almost 100% uptime and uses high speed servers
>but
* Steven D'Aprano, on 03.07.2010 16:24:
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 08:46:57 -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:40:34 -0700
John Nagle wrote:
Not according to Vex's published package list:
http://www.vex.net/info/tech/pkglist/
Hold on. That *is* the generated list
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 08:46:57 -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:40:34 -0700
> John Nagle wrote:
>> Not according to Vex's published package list:
>>
>> http://www.vex.net/info/tech/pkglist/
>
> Hold on. That *is* the generated list and Python 3.1 is on it. We ha
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:40:34 -0700
John Nagle wrote:
> Not according to Vex's published package list:
>
> http://www.vex.net/info/tech/pkglist/
Hold on. That *is* the generated list and Python 3.1 is on it. We
have both 2.6 and 3.1. The 3.1 version is listed right below the 2.6
one
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:40:34 -0700
John Nagle wrote:
> Not according to Vex's published package list:
>
> http://www.vex.net/info/tech/pkglist/
As it says on that page it may not be up to date. Look at the
generated list link. I guess I should update the static page as well.
> "vex
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:07:33 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
>> I think one point which needs to be emphasized more is what does
>> python 3 bring to people. The" what's new in python 3 page" gives
>> the impression that python 3 is about removing cruft. That's a very
>> poor argument to push people to s
On 7/2/2010 9:10 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On 2 Jul 2010 15:00:17 -0700
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
webfaction.com has python3.1
So does http://www.Vex.Net/ so there's your two.
Not according to Vex's publishe
On 2 Jul 2010 15:00:17 -0700
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
> >5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
>
> webfaction.com has python3.1
So does http://www.Vex.Net/ so there's your two.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.drui
On 7/2/2010 3:07 PM, John Nagle wrote:
That's the real issue, not parentheses on the "print" statement.
Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster.
It doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6.
False. One cannot run code in 2.6 that depends on bugfixes in 3.1. Nor
In article <4c2e79d3$0$1663$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
John Nagle wrote:
>On 7/2/2010 3:00 PM, Aahz wrote:
>> In article<4c2e38f5.10...@animats.com>, John Nagle wrote:
>>>
>>> 5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
>>
>> webfaction.com has python3.1
>
>Any use
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Steven D'Aprano <
st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:07:33 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
>
> > Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster. It
> > doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6. There's no "kill
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:07:33 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
> Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster. It
> doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6. There's no "killer app"
> for it. End of life for Python 2.x is many years away; most server Linux
> distros aren't eve
On 7/2/2010 3:00 PM, Aahz wrote:
In article<4c2e38f5.10...@animats.com>, John Nagle wrote:
5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
webfaction.com has python3.1
WebFaction's big thing is that they have a really good system for
installing anything the user want
John Nagle writes:
> Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster.
It's faster to learn, because there's less to learn.
How do you know that it's not faster? That's a matter of the speed of
individual Python implementations. What data do you have?
> It doesn't do anythin
In article <4c2e38f5.10...@animats.com>, John Nagle wrote:
>
>5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
webfaction.com has python3.1
--
Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
"If you don't know what your program is supposed to do,
On Jul 2, 12:07 pm, John Nagle wrote:
> This has all been said before.
Yes, we know. And when no one did anything about it the first dozen
times it's been said, it wasn't because we didn't hear it, it was
because we didn't care. We still don't care now, and won't care no
matter how many tim
On 07/02/2010 09:07 PM, John Nagle wrote:
>
>What I'm not seeing is a deployment plan along these lines:
>
>1.Identify key modules which must be converted before Python 3
> can be used in production environments.
That depends VERY strongly on the environment in question.
>
>
87 matches
Mail list logo
