On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Ben Sizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 26, 3:32 am, "Uwe C. Schroeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [del] >> >> > I just expect people to be a bit more thoughtful about how to manage >> > change. >> >> Well, I bet you're very welcome to contribute to the effort. > > I appreciate that these things don't get done unless somebody does > them. But I think raising awareness helps too. If a few more Python > people are made aware that backwards compatibility is actually not too > much to ask for, and that other parts of the software community know > full well it's not an unrealistic goal, then maybe at some point it'll > happen. > > Also, if the standard answer on open-source projects continues to be > "If you want it, contribute a patch", then you just find projects > becoming ever more specialised as frustrated people abandon the > project in favour of something else and those that remain continue to > mould the project to their own set of needs. > > Plus, often once a suggestion is made, it's relatively easy for > someone already versed in the code to implement it. It's much less > easy for an interested 3rd party to implement it when they are not > familiar with that part of the code. > I'm sorry to jump in late and with a complain but I totally disagree, in python and specially in TG backwards compatibility is prime, seriously TG runs on 2.3, and it depends on a BIG set of libraries all running that back, python is very backwards compatible. I personally think we should just forget about 2.3 seriously who still runs that? but it is still used therefore TG supports it.
Python is so backwards compatible (by nature) that it has a warnings module, which all respected code uses to tell you gently this function is deprecated you should use that. The rest of your argument is really something along the lines, I want it done but I don't want to do it so you do it. >> ( I still use 2.4 for all >> production systems I run - because I know it works. So when python 2.8 comes >> along I may go to 2.5 for production. Most things don't really need the >> latest version.) > > Well, yes, I have re-learned my lesson when it comes to Python, and am > back to using 2.5 for now. Unfortunately this means I can't use the > growing number of programs and extensions that are written to target > 2.6, and that is why compatibility is desirable. > please name one. what do you mean by "growing" seriously 2.6 has what 1 month out? they can't be a huge set of packages that only work on 2.6, as a side note remember 2.6 is a big milestone so even if you have a "growing number" that only work on 2.6 it's because they are preparing for 3000, THEN you can complain about breaking stuff. >> Or, since C++ is so much better, why do you even bother using python? Just >> write all you need in C++ :-) > > Python has many advantages over C++. It just happens that nobody seems > to care about backwards compatibility within the Python community. It > seems to be an issue that those of us on the periphery seem to run > into repeatedly, instead. > your kidding me right? in C++ even a minor release sometimes makes thing don't work. Are you familiar with release numbers? the first and second digit imply things have changed and that you should fix your calling code. >> On a side-note: you're complaining about incompatibilities in py 2.6 and >> backward compatibility issues. So why exactly are you still on Win XP, where >> Vista is backward incompatible in oh so many ways and XP is end of life? Just >> wondering... > > If I could download Vista for free, install it in 5 minutes, and > suffer no performance degradation as a result, then I'd probably do > that, and would have 90% of my software working fine without any > reconfiguration needed, never mind recompilation. Unlike Vista, Python > delivers on the first 3, and also unlike Vista, Python fails on the > last one. Not entirely a fair comparison though. > > -- > Ben Sizer > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
