On Apr 11, 6:08 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this- cybersource.com.au> wrote: > On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:54:04 -0700, Mensanator wrote: > > On Apr 11, 11:53 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this- > > cybersource.com.au> wrote: > >> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:08:44 -0700, Mensanator wrote: > >> >> > 3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed. As of now, > >> >> > it's seriously broken and unsuitable for production. > > >> >> In what ways do you consider it broken? > > >> > Issue 8093. Remarkably, this apparently hasn't been noticed before. > > >> I think that tells you that it's an unimportant bug that doesn't really > >> effect many people much, > > > It affects me ... a LOT. > > I suspect you're exaggerating,
I'm not. I often use a USB drive to store my source programs, makes it easy to switch between computers. Not being able to eject the USB drive is annoying, but not a game breaker. Likewise, I usually don't shut down when I leave work, so I can't allow orphaned processes to accumulate eating up CPU and memory. > but even if you're not, you are not the entire Python community. This is probably happening to everyone, they just haven't noticed. > You stated that "3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed". > It sounds like what you really mean was > "3.x won't be adopted by *me* until it's fixed" Not at all. The only 3rd party library I use is gmpy, and that's been updated, so I have more or less abandoned 2.x in favor of 3.x. I have not installed the latest 2.6 version and have no intention of ever installing 2.7 . > > 3.x is already being adopted by developers. Let's hope a little thing like this won't upset them. > The two biggest factors > slowing uptake of 3.x are: (1) lack of big libraries like numpy, and (2) > that major Linux distros still ship with 2.6 or 2.5. It was even worse with Mac OSX 10.6. Luckily, there's macports, so it all got resolved. > > >> and a million miles from implying that Python 3.x is "seriously broken > >> and unsuitable for production". > > > Maybe because I'm a user, not a developer. > > You write code. You use an Integrated DEVELOPMENT Environment. That makes > you a developer. Being a little pedantic here, aren't we? Would it help if I said "professional" developer? After all, just because I dabble in Collatz Conjecture research as a hobby, it doesn't give me the right to go around calling myself a mathematician. > > >> > I expect 2.7 will be around for a long time. > > >> As reported on the bug tracker, this bug effects Python 2.7 as well. > >> It's possible this bug goes back to, what? Python 2.5? 2.4? 2.3? Older? > >> Who knows? > > > I can't imagine my not having noticed this before. It's plausible I > > might not have noticed the runaway processes, but the fact that I can't > > eject a USB drive would have been very obvious. > > Have you tried to reproduce it on 2.6 or 2.5? No, all I can say is I haven't noticed it there. And given the symptoms, I can't see how I could have not noticed it. On the other hand, I can't see how it could have gone unnoticed on 3.x. You don't suppose I'm the only one actually using 3.1? > Unless you actively try to > reproduce it, you can't assume it doesn't occur. True, just as you can't assume I'm the only one it's happening to. > > >>http://bugs.python.org/issue8093#msg102818 > > >> In any case, IDLE is one IDE out of many, and not really up to > >> professional quality -- it's clunky and ugly. It isn't Python, it is a > >> tool written in Python. > > > You have no idea what the cause is, yet you're certain that the symptom > > is confined to IDLE. > > Certain? Of course not. But given an issue that is reported with a single > application, which is more likely? That it is a bug in the language, or a > bug in the application? *I* never said the LANGUAGE was broken. I specifically made reference to the Windows implementation of 3.1.2. > > Even if it is a bug in the language, some fundamental failure of the > underlying Python virtual machine or built-in objects, there are dozens > of standard library modules, and thousands of third-party modules, that > it doesn't affect. I assume you mean when not run in IDLE. And how do you know they're not affected? Didn't you just get done yelling at me for not testing it in 2.5 & 2.6? > > > That's the kind of thinking that leads to such bugs in the first place. > > Riiiight. You think these bugs are done deliberately? > > -- > Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
