On 9/11/07, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well I thought about this a bit more, and now I'm starting to think
> > it's not going to be *too* bad. There's a lot of existing C code out
> > there that uses the Python C API, and I doubt that python 3000 is
> > going to totally break all that code. The python developers surely
> > know that that existing codebase is one of python's strengths as a
> > "real language". Also I read somewhere that python 3000 is not being
> > rewritten from scratch, it's based on the 2.x code.
> >
>
> Yes, be warned:
>   http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
>
> Reinvinting your _own_ wheel is bad!

That's an excellent article -- many thanks for posting.  It's amazing
the extent to which I agree with it.   I remember at one point a few
years ago coming to the very strong realization that code that works
well and is readable is -- in some sense -- "like gold", and should
be valued and treated as such.  That perhaps says a lot about the
design of Sage: use Python because it is *readable*, and use libraries
like NTL and GSL because they work and work well.

> > But who knows.... I guess we'll find out in the next few years.

That's my perspective on this issue.  Since SAGE packages so many
other very very sophisticated Python packages, it doesn't make sense
to try to move to Python 3000 support in any way now.  We'll end up
wasting a lot of effort...  E.g., I once spent a lot of time trying to get
matplotlib to work with Python 2.5 when it first came out, and almost
had it -- a day later an official version appeared in which a matplotlib
developer did all I had done plus more (and much better than I did it).


 -- William

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to