On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Please don't feed the RUE.
Yeah, you'll RUE the day you get sucked into a conversation with a troll...
ChrisA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 20/03/2015 14:59, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 02:40:26 -0700 (PDT), wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Python 3.x is excellent.
Probably, the best language to show a
poor and buggy Unicode implementation
(Character Encoding Model).
When I think other computer languages or
Unicode re
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:59:01 +0100, Mario Figueiredo
wrote:
>
>Ah. So you are on the Python 3 unicode support sucks bandwagon too?
>
>Bet you guys have a whole lot of fun there. Rave parties, trashing,
>getting mad at something. Sounds fun.
>
>Over here, on the Python 3 unicode support is just fi
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 02:40:26 -0700 (PDT), wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>Python 3.x is excellent.
>Probably, the best language to show a
>poor and buggy Unicode implementation
>(Character Encoding Model).
>
>When I think other computer languages or
>Unicode related tools are all doing wrong.
>That's
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:03:02 -0400, Dennis Lee Bieber
wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:23:04 -0700, Paul Rubin
>declaimed the following:
>
>>Steven D'Aprano writes:
>>
>>> Anyone remember the big backwards incompatible changes made to Visual
>>> Basic? How long did that take to settle down after
Steven D'Aprano writes:
>> better to make a fork of the language
> You mean like Python 3?
No I mean like C to C++, or Lisp to Clojure, etc. Or if you prefer, C
to OpenCL or maybe even C++ to Java or C to Go. If you're going to
break old code, go big or go home ;-).
> There are still people us
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 03:35 am, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>> The two weeks we lost upgrading from Python 2.6 to 2.7 is just the
>> normal upgrade pains you always have to expect from any major project,
>
> Wait, what happened between 2.6 and 2.7 that took you two weeks of
> upgra
On 03/19/2015 04:16 PM, John Nagle wrote:
> On 3/16/2015 6:46 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
>> Since Python 3's adoption is directly impacted by package managers and
>> curated repos (or lack thereof), I feel justified in continuing this
>> thread just a bit farther.
>
>Since denying the problem d
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> The two weeks we lost upgrading from Python 2.6 to 2.7 is just the
> normal upgrade pains you always have to expect from any major project,
Wait, what happened between 2.6 and 2.7 that took you two weeks of
upgrading?
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-l
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 4:23:37 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:11 pm, Ned Deily wrote:
>
> > In any case, of the two problems noted with Python itself, there is only
> > one that appears to be Python 3 related. That's still not good but I
> > think it would b
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:11 pm, Ned Deily wrote:
> In any case, of the two problems noted with Python itself, there is only
> one that appears to be Python 3 related. That's still not good but I
> think it would be fairer to ascribe a good chunk of the pain you've
> experienced to the more common p
In article , John Nagle
wrote:
>If only that were true. Look what I'm reporting bugs on:
>
> ssl - a core Python module.
I assume you're referring to http://bugs.python.org/issue23476.
It seems to me that the issue there was not in Python but due to a
shortcoming in OpenSSL itself.
On 18/03/2015 06:37, John Nagle wrote:
On 3/15/2015 4:43 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
In article ,
Mario Figueiredo wrote:
What makes you think your anecdotal bugs constitute any sort of
evidence this programming language isn't ready to be used by the
public?
There's several levels of "ready".
I
On 3/15/2015 4:43 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article ,
> Mario Figueiredo wrote:
>
>> What makes you think your anecdotal bugs constitute any sort of
>> evidence this programming language isn't ready to be used by the
>> public?
>
> There's several levels of "ready".
>
> I'm sure the core langu
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 04:36:01 +, Mark Lawrence
wrote:
>
>Of course we could avoid all of these problems if we were to bring back
>the mainframe or mini and the dumb terminal.
>
>Take cover, incoming :)
No kidding. Installing only the software you coded (or from source)
may be a little too mu
On 17/03/2015 22:36, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:50:57 + (UTC), Grant Edwards
declaimed the following:
On 2015-03-17, Mark Lawrence wrote:
Of course we could avoid all of these problems if we were to bring back
the mainframe or mini and the dumb terminal.
We did, e
On 17Mar2015 05:30, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:42:42 +1100, Ben Finney
wrote:
Mario Figueiredo writes:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:02:38 +1100, Chris Angelico
wrote:
>Imagine you need a PostgreSQL database for your Python application -
>which also means you need psycopg2, of
On 03/17/2015 02:39 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 March 2015 12:46, Michael Torrie wrote:
>
>> Python3 can be installed from Software Collections (and that is somewhat
>> reasonable), but it won't integrate by default, so you can't use
>> #!/usr/bin/python3 in your apps by default wit
On 2015-03-17, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Of course we could avoid all of these problems if we were to bring back
> the mainframe or mini and the dumb terminal.
We did, except we made the terminal smarter and prettier and called it
a "web browser" and we call the mainframe a "web server".
--
Gran
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 22:26:58 +1100, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
>
>>
>> Can you give an example? I wouldn't count things like gets, which
>> aren't as much changes in the language, as recognition that using it was
>> buggy from the start.
>
>That's exactly the point. `gets` is dangerous and needs to
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:36 am, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
[...]
>> If we were designing Python from scratch today, here are some of the
>> changes we would certainly make: [mostly good changes]
>
> I agree with most of those changes and I'd add some of my own that are
> even more
On Tuesday 17 March 2015 12:46, Michael Torrie wrote:
> Python3 can be installed from Software Collections (and that is somewhat
> reasonable), but it won't integrate by default, so you can't use
> #!/usr/bin/python3 in your apps by default without altering the system
> paths.
If RedHat installs
On Tuesday 17 March 2015 14:33, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 03/16/2015 09:04 PM, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
>> Are you saying this is a problem for any developer? Especially
>> considering this is a one-time operation...
>>
>> Or maybe you mean lazy developers. But lazy developers are an edge
>> case
On 17Mar2015 07:36, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
I must admit that the Linux filesystem layout strikes me as awfully pedantic
and fussy. We're happy to use our home directory as an undifferentiated bag
with no structure, dumping binaries, scripts, documents, data files, config
files and everything el
On 17/03/2015 04:26, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:49:36 +1100, Chris Angelico
wrote:
The simpler you can make those instructions, the easier it is for
people to use your program. So on Windows, that probably means you
have to bundle everything into a big fat .exe or .msi ins
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:42:42 +1100, Ben Finney
wrote:
>Mario Figueiredo writes:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:02:38 +1100, Chris Angelico
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >Imagine you need a PostgreSQL database for your Python application -
>> >which also means you need psycopg2, of course. How do you go about
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:49:36 +1100, Chris Angelico
wrote:
>
>The simpler you can make those instructions, the easier it is for
>people to use your program. So on Windows, that probably means you
>have to bundle everything into a big fat .exe or .msi installer, which
>is what leads to DLL Hell whe
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:02:38 +1100, Chris Angelico
> wrote:
>>
>>Imagine you need a
>>PostgreSQL database for your Python application - which also means you
>>need psycopg2, of course. How do you go about writing installation
>>instructio
Hi all,
Surely you did not look at the package manager and package assortment of
OpenBSD.
It is actually a really good example of how package repository can be both
reliable, easy to use and up to date.
Also, what sort of quality can be expected from a piece of software, whose
author is unable t
Mario Figueiredo writes:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:02:38 +1100, Chris Angelico
> wrote:
> >
> >Imagine you need a PostgreSQL database for your Python application -
> >which also means you need psycopg2, of course. How do you go about
> >writing installation instructions?
> >
> >* WINDOWS *
> >1)
On 03/16/2015 09:04 PM, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
> Are you saying this is a problem for any developer? Especially
> considering this is a one-time operation...
>
> Or maybe you mean lazy developers. But lazy developers are an edge
> case not worth being catered for.
I guess I'm saying the package
On 17/03/2015 03:05, Michael Torrie wrote:
On 03/16/2015 09:01 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
Reading this makes me realise how lucky I am not having to worry about
such issues.
How so?
I don't work due to ill health. I use Python at home on Windows purely
for my own needs which pip now covers,
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:05:03 -0600, Michael Torrie
wrote:
>On 03/16/2015 09:01 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> Reading this makes me realise how lucky I am not having to worry about
>> such issues.
>
>How so?
Speaking for myself (I know you didn't ask me) what you call the
"dismal world of windows"
On 03/16/2015 08:45 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
>>> But after 20 years, the package manager idea certain has revealed many
>>> shortcomings (in short, it sucks in many ways). ...
>> The hardest part is managing library
On 03/16/2015 09:01 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Reading this makes me realise how lucky I am not having to worry about
> such issues.
How so?
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:02:38 +1100, Chris Angelico
wrote:
>
>Imagine you need a
>PostgreSQL database for your Python application - which also means you
>need psycopg2, of course. How do you go about writing installation
>instructions?
>
>* WINDOWS *
>1) Install the latest Python 3 from https://www
On 17/03/2015 02:51, Michael Torrie wrote:
On 03/16/2015 08:40 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
Thanks again. This is an important and difficult problem, with competing
forces at play, and I am not at all satisfied with the current state of
packaging.
I agree. Though I like the concept of package manage
On 03/16/2015 08:40 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Thanks again. This is an important and difficult problem, with competing
> forces at play, and I am not at all satisfied with the current state of
> packaging.
I agree. Though I like the concept of package managers and curated
repos, compared to the dis
Chris Angelico writes:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
>> But after 20 years, the package manager idea certain has revealed many
>> shortcomings (in short, it sucks in many ways). ...
> The hardest part is managing library versions, and that's always going
> to be a prob
Thanks for discussing this, Michael.
Michael Torrie writes:
> For developers things are even more grim. Package managers certainly
> don't work so well for third-party apps like VirtualBox, LibreOffice,
> Firefox, etc. Part of the issue is the multiple moving targets distros
> present in terms o
On 3/16/2015 6:36 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
Do you know if any of the big Python shops (Google maybe?) are using
Python 3 these days?
LibreOffice uses Python3.3 (or later, don't know) both for internal
scripting and the Python bridge. The FSR unicode that works everywhere
for all codepoints had
On 16/03/2015 22:02, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Michael Torrie wrote:
A bit off topic here, but all of this highlights major weaknesses in the
Linux software distribution model. While we Linux nerds like to poke fun
at Windows for not even having a proper package man
On 03/16/2015 02:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I'm sorry, that makes no sense to me. What does it matter whether Python3 is
> installed to /opt or /usr or /bin or /who/the/feck/cares, so long as your
> application runs when you run it? It's just another dependency, and no more
> than one call to
On 03/16/2015 07:57 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> But the solution isn't necessarily to throw out the packaging system.
> All you need is to expand it.
Yes. And of course that's exactly what Poettering is talking about in
his paper. Despite what many think of him, he's a deep thinker and it's
wor
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> But after 20 years, the package manager idea certain has revealed many
> shortcomings (in short, it sucks in many ways). Package managers work
> great for setting up the core distro, and also if the packages you need
> are in the repos. D
Since Python 3's adoption is directly impacted by package managers and
curated repos (or lack thereof), I feel justified in continuing this
thread just a bit farther.
On 03/16/2015 04:02 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> It most assuredly does NOT suck for end users. Apart from issues of
> naming (grab
Steven D'Aprano writes:
>> Why did the changes have to be introduced at all?
> For the same reason any improvement and functional update is
> introduced. To make a better language.
There comes a point when you decide that maintaining existing code is
important enough that you have to stop breakin
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> A bit off topic here, but all of this highlights major weaknesses in the
> Linux software distribution model. While we Linux nerds like to poke fun
> at Windows for not even having a proper package manager until Windows
> 10, in fact the pac
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 04:20 am, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 03/16/2015 03:13 AM, INADA Naoki wrote:
>> I think application developers should use *only* Python 3 from this year.
>> If we start moving, more library developers will be able to start
>> writing Python 3 only code from next year.
>
> An a
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 3/16/2015 5:13 AM, INADA Naoki wrote:
>
>> Another experience is porting Flask application in my company from
>> Python 2 to Python 3.
>> It has 26k lines of code and 7.6k lines of tests.
>>
>> Since we don't need to support both of PY2 and
On 16/03/2015 17:47, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/16/2015 5:13 AM, INADA Naoki wrote:
Another experience is porting Flask application in my company from
Python 2 to Python 3.
It has 26k lines of code and 7.6k lines of tests.
Since we don't need to support both of PY2 and PY3, we used 2to3.
2to3 cha
On 3/16/2015 4:31 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
sure why numpy couldn't go in the stdlib: does it change all that fast?
First there was Numerical Python, the first killer app (though a
library) for Python. Then there was was NumArray by a competing group,
with some not-quite forward compatible chan
On 3/16/2015 5:13 AM, INADA Naoki wrote:
Another experience is porting Flask application in my company from
Python 2 to Python 3.
It has 26k lines of code and 7.6k lines of tests.
Since we don't need to support both of PY2 and PY3, we used 2to3.
2to3 changes 740 lines.
That is less than 3% of
On 03/16/2015 03:13 AM, INADA Naoki wrote:
> I think application developers should use *only* Python 3 from this year.
> If we start moving, more library developers will be able to start
> writing Python 3 only code from next year.
An admirable sentiment, but I'm currently running the latest RHEL
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 07:25 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>> It may, or may not, turn out that in hindsight there might have been
>> better ways to manage the Python2-3 transaction. Let's be honest, a lot
>> of the changes could have been introduced incrementally...
>
> Why did t
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Of course, "problem" seems to be relative. PHP culture seems to accept that
> code will break when you do a minor upgrade, and it's no big deal to do a
> search-and-replace and rename your functions. The same thing would be
> considered un
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 07:31 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>> The std lib is *batteries* included. If you need a nuclear reactor, you
>> turn to third-party frameworks and libraries like Twisted, Zope, numpy,
>> PLY, etc.
>
> I always thought twisted and zope were monstrosities.
INADA Naoki wrote:
> I think application developers should use only Python 3 from this year.
> If we start moving, more library developers will be able to start
> writing Python 3 only code from next year.
Where this is possible, that is an excellent idea.
Alas, too many (Linux) developers insis
On Monday 16 March 2015 02:17:44 Ben Finney wrote:
> Cameron Simpson writes:
> > To quote Graham Dumpleton:
> >
> > For years have seen people make vague grumbles about something not
> > working with mod_wsgi. Not one ever reported bug or described
> > problem.
>
> Hmm. How easy is it for someo
Terry Reedy writes:
> Every change potentially breaks something. (How would you have
> changed 1/2 from 0 to .5 without breaking anything?)
I would not have changed that. It was an ill-advised change that broke
things unnecessarily.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
google-api-client has ported from PY2 to PY2/3 recently.
https://github.com/google/google-api-python-client
It has 4000 lines of code and 3200 lines of tests. It is legacy
library. It is indented by 2 spaces
since it was created before Google changes their coding style.
There are two major pull
On 3/16/2015 1:07 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
I saved a quote from Hacker News a while back (I don't know who the
author is):
"You know why I'm not running python 3?
> Because it doesn't solve a single problem I have.
Quite possibly true.
>It doesn't solve anyone's problems. It
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> [ a whole lot of stuff that I agree with, and then ... ]
> Module renames could be handled via stub modules. Even Unicode strings could
> hypothetically have been added via a __future__ import.
This part I don't agree with. The problem wit
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> The std lib is *batteries* included. If you need a nuclear reactor, you turn
> to third-party frameworks and libraries like Twisted, Zope, numpy, PLY, etc.
I always thought twisted and zope were monstrosities. I've used threads
instead of twisted and various other pos
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> It may, or may not, turn out that in hindsight there might have been better
> ways to manage the Python2-3 transaction. Let's be honest, a lot of the
> changes could have been introduced incrementally...
Why did the changes have to be introduced at all?
> I suspect th
I believe we push towards accepting new paradigms like python 3. If bugs were
found on libraries used in older context were probably because there wasn't a
need of particular feature. & that is how eventually a software becomes a
legacy. There are times when we might want to re-use this library
I believe we push towards accepting new paradigms like python 3. If bugs
were found on libraries used in older context were probably because there
wasn't a need of particular feature. & that is how eventually a software
becomes a legacy. There are times when we might want to re-use this library
or
On Monday 16 March 2015 17:17, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>> Ah but it isn't Py3 that's all about being first - it's the latest
>> version of some third-party module.
>
> You know, one of the attractions of Python used to be that it came with
> a powerful enough standard library
On Monday 16 March 2015 16:39, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Paul Rubin
> wrote:
>> Python 2 is by now pretty solid and its users don't feel like beta
>> testers any more. If you're saying using Python 3 by contrast means
>> "being first" and "reporting bugs", that bas
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Sadly becoming the norm. People will run a software project and just
> assume that users will be willing to go through a registration process
> for every project just to report a bug.
Registering for github is a lot easier than creating a repr
Chris Angelico writes:
> Ah but it isn't Py3 that's all about being first - it's the latest
> version of some third-party module.
You know, one of the attractions of Python used to be that it came with
a powerful enough standard library that you didn't really need third
party modules very often.
Cameron Simpson writes:
> To quote Graham Dumpleton:
>
> For years have seen people make vague grumbles about something not
> working with mod_wsgi. Not one ever reported bug or described problem.
Hmm. How easy is it for someone who, say, an hour ago had no idea they
would ever want to contact
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Python 2 is by now pretty solid and its users don't feel like beta
> testers any more. If you're saying using Python 3 by contrast means
> "being first" and "reporting bugs", that basically translates to "stay
> away from it except for experime
Chris Angelico writes:
>>> Solution: Use it! Do the port to Python 3, and file those upstream
>>> bug reports.
>> One should mention that John did all of that.
> Yep. I'm not saying that John did the wrong thing; what I'm saying is
> that, sometimes, this kind of pain is the exact thing that makes
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
>> I would say that time clearly isn't the issue. Nine years IS enough...
>> if it's a matter of time. But since the bugs are still there, it means
>> that the problem is a lack of usage. Solution: Use it! Do the port to
>> Python 3, and file
On 16Mar2015 11:38, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
"Some of the bugs I listed are so easy to hit that I suspect those
packages aren't used much. Those bugs should have been found years
ago. Fixed, even. I shouldn't be discovering them in 2015.
On 16/03/2015 00:25, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 15/03/2015 20:59, Fetchinson . wrote:
On 3/15/15, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 15/03/2015 19:05, John Nagle wrote:
On 3/14/2015 1:00 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
John Nagle :
I'm approaching the end of converting a large sys
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> "Some of the bugs I listed are so easy to hit that I suspect those
> packages aren't used much. Those bugs should have been found years
> ago. Fixed, even. I shouldn't be discovering them in 2015."
>
> Clearly a mere nine years is NOT l
Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 15/03/2015 20:59, Fetchinson . wrote:
>> On 3/15/15, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>> On 15/03/2015 19:05, John Nagle wrote:
On 3/14/2015 1:00 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> John Nagle :
>> I'm approaching the end of converting a large system from Python
>>
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 19:43:38 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
>
>The big problem continues to be the legacy projects. People made
>decisions years ago about what packages to use, and those decisions are
>hard to get away from. There is a lot of production code out there
>which still uses third-party
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
> The big problem continues to be the legacy projects. People made
> decisions years ago about what packages to use, and those decisions are
> hard to get away from. There is a lot of production code out there
> which still uses third-party pack
In article ,
Mario Figueiredo wrote:
> What makes you think your anedoctal bugs constitute any sort of
> evidence this programming language isn't ready to be used by the
> public?
There's several levels of "ready".
I'm sure the core language is more than ready for production use for a
project
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 12:05:21 -0700, John Nagle
wrote:
>On 3/14/2015 1:00 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>
>Some of the bugs I listed are so easy to hit that I suspect those
>packages aren't used much. Those bugs should have been found years
>ago. Fixed, even. I shouldn't be discovering them in
On 15/03/2015 20:59, Fetchinson . wrote:
On 3/15/15, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 15/03/2015 19:05, John Nagle wrote:
On 3/14/2015 1:00 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
John Nagle :
I'm approaching the end of converting a large system from Python 2
to Python 3. Here's why you don't want to do this.
On 3/15/15, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 15/03/2015 19:05, John Nagle wrote:
>> On 3/14/2015 1:00 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>> John Nagle :
I'm approaching the end of converting a large system from Python 2
to Python 3. Here's why you don't want to do this.
>>>
>>> A nice report, thanks
On 15/03/2015 19:05, John Nagle wrote:
On 3/14/2015 1:00 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
John Nagle :
I'm approaching the end of converting a large system from Python 2
to Python 3. Here's why you don't want to do this.
A nice report, thanks. Shows that the slowness of Python 3 adoption is
not o
On 3/14/2015 1:00 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> John Nagle :
>> I'm approaching the end of converting a large system from Python 2
>> to Python 3. Here's why you don't want to do this.
>
> A nice report, thanks. Shows that the slowness of Python 3 adoption is
> not only social inertia.
> Marko
What I want to say is, MySQLdb -> PyMySQL conversion is not required
for porting from Python 2 to Python 3.
mysqlclient is straight upgrade path from MySQLdb.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 8:01 AM, John Nagle wrote:
> On 3/13/2015 3:27 PM, INADA Naoki wrote:
>> Hi, John. I'm maintainer of PyMySQL.
>>
On 13/03/2015 21:08, John Nagle wrote:
I'm approaching the end of converting a large system from Python 2 to
Python 3. Here's why you don't want to do this.
One reason why you should
https://speakerdeck.com/pyconslides/python-3-dot-3-trust-me-its-better-than-python-2-dot-7-by-dr-brett-can
John Nagle :
> I'm approaching the end of converting a large system from Python 2
> to Python 3. Here's why you don't want to do this.
A nice report, thanks. Shows that the slowness of Python 3 adoption is
not only social inertia.
Marko
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Ned Deily wrote:
> In article , John Nagle
> wrote:
>>All the bugs I'm discussing reflect forced package
>> changes or upgrades. None were voluntary on my part.
>
> You would have run into the SSL certificate issue if you upgraded your
> Python 2 instance to
In article , John Nagle
wrote:
>All the bugs I'm discussing reflect forced package
> changes or upgrades. None were voluntary on my part.
You would have run into the SSL certificate issue if you upgraded your
Python 2 instance to the current Python 2.7.9.
--
Ned Deily,
n...@acm.org
--
On 3/13/2015 3:27 PM, INADA Naoki wrote:
> Hi, John. I'm maintainer of PyMySQL.
>
> I'm sorry about bug of PyMySQL. But the bug is completely unrelated
> to Python 3.
> You may encounter the bug on Python 2 too.
True. But much of the pain of converting to Python 3
comes from having to switc
Hi, John. I'm maintainer of PyMySQL.
I'm sorry about bug of PyMySQL. But the bug is completely unrelated
to Python 3.
You may encounter the bug on Python 2 too.
I've already made mysqlclient, the fork of MySQLdb supporting Python 3.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 6:08 AM, John Nagle wrote:
> I'm
I'm approaching the end of converting a large system from Python 2 to
Python 3. Here's why you don't want to do this.
The language changes aren't that bad, and they're known and
documented. It's the package changes that are the problem.
Discovering and fixing all the new bugs takes a while.
95 matches
Mail list logo
