On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 20:22:30 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Gregory Ewing wrote:
>> Rick Johnson wrote:
>> > Heck, when is the last time GvR participated in any discussion
>> > outside the hermetic bubble of Python-Dev or Python-Ideas?
>>
>> I'd hardly call python-ideas "hermetic". Anyone is free t
Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Rick Johnson wrote:
> > Heck, when is the last time GvR participated in any
> > discussion outside the hermetic bubble of Python-Dev or
> > Python-Ideas?
>
> I'd hardly call python-ideas "hermetic". Anyone is free to
> post there and participate in discussions. Python-dev i
Steve D'Aprano writes:
> Guido has ruled that Python 4 will not be a major compatibility break
Looking forward to Python 5 then ;-).
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 09/10/2017 09:38 PM, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> It ain't dead yet... Fujitsu still has a COBOL compiler/IDE for Windows
> and/or .NET (and maybe even other systems)... (I should see if Win10 can
> install the Fujitsu COBOL 4 that came with my Y2K era text books... WinXP
> could not install
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
>> By the way, "onerous" is an adjective, not a noun.
>
> "Onerosity" or "onertude" would be the correct grammatical forms for the
> noun.
More likely, "onus" was intended.
ChrisA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 00:07:15 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Rick Johnson
> wrote:
>> Ian wrote:
>>> Rick Johnson wrote:
>>> > Ned Batchelder wrote:
>>> > > Leam Hall wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I've read comments about Python 3 moving from the Zen of Python.
>>> > > >
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> Ian wrote:
>> Rick Johnson wrote:
>> > Ned Batchelder wrote:
>> > > Leam Hall wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I've read comments about Python 3 moving from the Zen of
>> > > > Python. I'm a "plain and simple" person myself.
>> > > > Complexity to su
On 09/10/2017 09:20 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Been there. I'm afraid this is not a joke:
>
> https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition>
Wow that's pretty amazing! Thanks for sharing that link.
> Python, COBOL for the next generation.
I guess we'll have to see. CO
Rick Johnson wrote:
Heck, when is the last time GvR participated in any
discussion outside the hermetic bubble of Python-Dev or
Python-Ideas?
I'd hardly call python-ideas "hermetic". Anyone is free to
post there and participate in discussions.
Python-dev is open to anyone too, the only differe
Ian wrote:
> Rick Johnson wrote:
> > Ned Batchelder wrote:
> > > Leam Hall wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've read comments about Python 3 moving from the Zen of
> > > > Python. I'm a "plain and simple" person myself.
> > > > Complexity to support what CompSci folks want, which was
> > > > used to descri
Steve D'Aprano wrote:
> Rick Johnson wrote:
> > Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> > >
> > > The risk to Python will be whether the occasion is
> > > exploited by fanboys of competing programming languages.
> > > The migration from Python 2 might be to something else
> > > than Python 3 in some circles.
> >
Ian Kelly :
> 2. Type hints are completely optional, so this does not support the
> claim that Python 3 added complexity that is counter-productive to
> "simple" users. If you want to keep your program simple, you can: just
> don't use them.
We'll see about that. I'm afraid type hints will become
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 8:57:56 AM UTC-5, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>> On 9/8/17 6:12 AM, Leam Hall wrote:
>> > I've read comments about Python 3 moving from the Zen of Python. I'm a
>> > "plain and simple" person myself. Complexity to supp
On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 01:08 pm, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> The risk to Python will be whether the occasion is
>> exploited by fanboys of competing programming languages.
>> The migration from Python 2 might be to something else than
>> Python 3 in some circles.
>
> That has been
On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 02:04 pm, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Can you imagine the rage that someone will feel after
> climbing up the migration hill from Python2 to Python3, and
> then suddenly, hearing the announcement that it's now time
> to migrate to Python4?
Guido has ruled that Python 4 will not be a
Steve D'Aprano wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
> But some of us can't resist the temptation to evangelise
> about Python 3 :-)
An error that did not pass silently. Even when
explicitly requested.
> > Also, be completely honest here: how much work would it
> > take for you to move your "millions o
On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 10:42:44 AM UTC-5, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
> To be perfectly rational, we *should* consider at least
> three alternatives:
>
> (1) Stick with Python 2 and pay for support;
>
> (2) Migrate to Python 3;
>
> (3) Re-implement in some other language;
>
> and make a dis
On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 9:41:55 AM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
> False dichotomy. [Python3 was] not a total rewrite, but it
> fixes certain long-standing issues. Compatibility had to be
> broken in order to change certain behaviours.
Namely: maintenance programmers who dared to take a bre
On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 9:22:52 AM UTC-5, leam hall wrote:
> To say Python 2 is old is true.
Old? Yes. Ancient? BS!
> What does it matter though? Unless Python 3 provides a
> business value for spending lots of time and money to
> change then "old" doesn't matter.
If the code performs t
On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 8:57:56 AM UTC-5, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> On 9/8/17 6:12 AM, Leam Hall wrote:
> > I've read comments about Python 3 moving from the Zen of Python. I'm a
> > "plain and simple" person myself. Complexity to support what CompSci
> > folks want, which was used to describ
Chris Angelico wrote:
> And the sky is going to fall on Chicken Little's head, any
> day now. Let's see. You can port your code from Python 2.7
> to Python 3.6 by running a script and then checking the
> results for bytes/text problems.
This is an argument i find interesting: First, the Python3
j
Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> The risk to Python will be whether the occasion is
> exploited by fanboys of competing programming languages.
> The migration from Python 2 might be to something else than
> Python 3 in some circles.
That has been my observation as well. Python-dev and Python-
ideas have be
On 9/8/2017 12:27 PM, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2017 12:23 am, Leam Hall wrote:
If Python 3 is not a total re-write then why break
compatibility?
To avoid building up excess cruft in the language.
To fix design mistakes which cannot be fixed without a backwards-incompatible
change
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Christopher Reimer <
christopher_rei...@icloud.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 2017, at 6:57 AM, Ned Batchelder
> wrote:
> >
> > What is it that CompSci folks want that developers don't
> > want, that ruined Python 3?
>
> Long-winded debates about obscure language featur
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 6:57 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>
> What is it that CompSci folks want that developers don't
> want, that ruined Python 3?
Long-winded debates about obscure language features that left the layman
programmers in the bit bucket about 50+ comments ago.
While some of this can b
Op 2017-09-08, Stefan Ram schreef :
> OTOH, there are those killjoys who complain about
> "too many parentheses" in programs written in the
> "simple language".
Which is clearly nonsense since it is easy to show that any working
program in said simple language contains *precisely enough* par
On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 5:19:36 PM UTC+1, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2017 12:41 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> >> I ran 2to3 on some code that worked under 2.6.6. and 3.6.2. 2to3 broke it
> >> for both versions and it was a fairly trivial script.
> >
> > Show the code that it br
On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 11:12:50 AM UTC+1, Leam Hall wrote:
>
> I've read comments about Python 3 moving from the Zen of Python. I'm a
> "plain and simple" person myself. Complexity to support what CompSci
> folks want, which was used to describe some of the Python 3 changes,
> doesn't
On 2017-09-08, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
> One thing which is notoriously tricky to migrate is mixed
> bytes/Latin1 text using Python 2 strings, say you're manipulating
> file formats that mix text with binary bytes. These mixed
> binary/text files are sometimes badly suite
y causes trouble is the
bytes/text distinction (which, if we're honest, is really just
exposing a problem that was already there), and that's only if you
have a boundary that can't be trivially resolved eg by adding
encoding="utf-8" to your file open calls.
> One thing
On Sat, 9 Sep 2017 12:23 am, Leam Hall wrote:
> Various responses in no particular order:
>
> On 09/08/2017 09:57 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>> I've heard a lot of FUD about the Python 3 transition, but this one is
>> new to me. What is it that CompSci folks want that developers don't
>> want, th
On 9/8/2017 6:12 AM, Leam Hall wrote:
I've read comments about Python 3 moving from the Zen of Python.
Comments about Python 3 range from factual to opinionated to fake.
I'm a "plain and simple" person myself.
Many of the changes in Python3 were simplifications -- removing a
semi-deprecat
ne thing which is notoriously tricky to migrate is mixed bytes/Latin1 text
using Python 2 strings, say you're manipulating file formats that mix text with
binary bytes. These mixed binary/text files are sometimes badly suited to the
new Unicode/bytes model.
(There was some discussion on Python-Idea
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Steve D'Aprano
wrote:
> ... because this is
> really just an excuse to do what they've wanted to do all along: use a
> different language.
>
> Or because somebody in management heard from somebody on LinkedIn that they
> heard on Facebook about something they read i
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:51 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Chris Angelico :
>>> But as others have said, upgrading to 3.4+ is not as hard as many
>>> people fear, and your code generally improves as a result
>>
>> That's somewhat irrelevant. Poi
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:50 pm, Larry Martell wrote:
> If python 2 ever
> is not available I guess then they will have to find the time and
> money.
Python 2 is open source, it will always be available so long as we still have
computers capable of running present day software.
(Presumably by the y
On 9/8/17 10:23 AM, Leam Hall wrote:
> On 09/08/2017 09:57 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>> I've heard a lot of FUD about the Python 3 transition, but this one is
>> new to me. What is it that CompSci folks want that developers don't
>> want, that ruined Python 3?
>
>
> It's not FUD if it's true. Cal
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 08:40 pm, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Leam Hall :
>> However, those millions of servers are running Python 2.6 and a
>> smaller number running 2.7. At least in the US market since Red Hat
>> Enterprise Linux and its derivatives run 2.6.6 (RHEL 6) or 2.7.5 (RHEL
>> 7). Not sure what
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Leam Hall wrote:
> Various responses in no particular order:
>
> On 09/08/2017 09:57 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>>
>> I've heard a lot of FUD about the Python 3 transition, but this one is
>> new to me. What is it that CompSci folks want that developers don't
>> wa
Various responses in no particular order:
On 09/08/2017 09:57 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
I've heard a lot of FUD about the Python 3 transition, but this one is
new to me. What is it that CompSci folks want that developers don't
want, that ruined Python 3?
It's not FUD if it's true. Calling it
On 9/8/17 6:12 AM, Leam Hall wrote:
> I've read comments about Python 3 moving from the Zen of Python. I'm a
> "plain and simple" person myself. Complexity to support what CompSci
> folks want, which was used to describe some of the Python 3 changes,
> doesn't help me get work done.
I've heard a
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico :
>> But as others have said, upgrading to 3.4+ is not as hard as many
>> people fear, and your code generally improves as a result
>
> That's somewhat irrelevant. Point is, Python 2 will quickly become a
> pariah in many corp
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico :
>> But as others have said, upgrading to 3.4+ is not as hard as many
>> people fear, and your code generally improves as a result
>
> That's somewhat irrelevant. Point is, Python 2 will quickly become a
> pariah in many corpo
Chris Angelico :
> But as others have said, upgrading to 3.4+ is not as hard as many
> people fear, and your code generally improves as a result
That's somewhat irrelevant. Point is, Python 2 will quickly become a
pariah in many corporations during or after 2018, and we are going to
see emergency
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Leam Hall wrote:
> However, those millions of servers are running Python 2.6 and a smaller
> number running 2.7. At least in the US market since Red Hat Enterprise Linux
> and its derivatives run 2.6.6 (RHEL 6) or 2.7.5 (RHEL 7). Not sure what
> Python SuSE uses but
On 09/08/2017 06:40 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Leam Hall :
However, those millions of servers are running Python 2.6 and a
smaller number running 2.7. At least in the US market since Red Hat
Enterprise Linux and its derivatives run 2.6.6 (RHEL 6) or 2.7.5 (RHEL
7). Not sure what Python SuSE uses
Leam Hall :
> However, those millions of servers are running Python 2.6 and a
> smaller number running 2.7. At least in the US market since Red Hat
> Enterprise Linux and its derivatives run 2.6.6 (RHEL 6) or 2.7.5 (RHEL
> 7). Not sure what Python SuSE uses but they seem to have a fairly
> large Eu
Leam Hall writes:
> I've read comments about Python 3 moving from the Zen of Python.
For what it's worth: I have done successful conversions of numerous code
bases from Python 2 to Python 3, and that characterisation does not fit
at all. The resulting code base is much more Pythonic.
> I'm a "p
On 09/08/2017 05:45 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
leam hall writes:
I've wrestled with that discussion for a while and Python 3 loses every
time.
The context of the thread you started was that you are a *newcomer* to
Python. Now you say you'v
On 09/05/17 03:01, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 12:48:03 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
http://www.asmeurer.com/python3-presentation/slides.html#1
Nice list thanks!
Do you have a similar list of
10 awesome features of Python that you can't use because you refuse to upgrad
On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 8:16:09 PM UTC+5:30, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> On 09.05.17 09:01, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 12:48:03 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> http://www.asmeurer.com/python3-presentation/slides.html#1
> >
> > Nice list thanks!
> >
> > Do you have a
On 09.05.17 09:01, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 12:48:03 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
http://www.asmeurer.com/python3-presentation/slides.html#1
Nice list thanks!
Do you have a similar list of
10 awesome features of Python that you can't use because you refuse to upgrad
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 12:48:03 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> http://www.asmeurer.com/python3-presentation/slides.html#1
>
> Nice list thanks!
>
> Do you have a similar list of
> 10 awesome features of Python that you can't use becau
On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 12:48:03 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> http://www.asmeurer.com/python3-presentation/slides.html#1
Nice list thanks!
Do you have a similar list of
10 awesome features of Python that you can't use because you refuse to upgrade
from Java/C++ ?
[Context: Ive to ta
On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 5:09:33 PM UTC-7, justin walters wrote:
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:40 PM, wrote:
>
> > Slide 15:
> >
> > > def sum(a, b, biteme=False):
> > > if biteme:
> > > shutil.rmtree('/')
> > > else:
> > > return a + b
> >
> > Now that's just evil. :^)
> >
On 2017-05-08 07:17, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> http://www.asmeurer.com/python3-presentation/slides.html#1
Just adding my regular beef about #5, the "everything is an
iterator" in regards to the new tuple-unpacking when the wild-card
is in the last position:
>>> a,b, *c = range(10)
>>> a
0
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:40 PM, wrote:
> Slide 15:
>
> > def sum(a, b, biteme=False):
> > if biteme:
> > shutil.rmtree('/')
> > else:
> > return a + b
>
> Now that's just evil. :^)
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
I sincerely hope no-one is t
Slide 15:
> def sum(a, b, biteme=False):
> if biteme:
> shutil.rmtree('/')
> else:
> return a + b
Now that's just evil. :^)
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > Slide 58: "Not going to lie to you. I still don't get this." Uh, sure,
> > great sales pitch there. If the author doesn't understand asyncio, then
> why
> > include it in the list?
>
> IM
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Slide 58: "Not going to lie to you. I still don't get this." Uh, sure,
> great sales pitch there. If the author doesn't understand asyncio, then why
> include it in the list?
IMO he doesn't understand it because he's aiming at Python 3.4. Aim at
Overall a nice preso. I disagree with the slides on a few points.
Slide 8: I don't see why I would want to refactor
def f(a, b, *args):
stuff
into
def f(*args):
a, b, *args = args
stuff
The first one has a cleaner signature and is also shorter.
Slide 55: What makes the "Better" ex
http://www.asmeurer.com/python3-presentation/slides.html#1
(The web UI is a bit ~~crap~~ minimialist. Use the left and right arrow
keys to advance backwards and forwards among the slides.)
--
Steve
Emoji: a small, fuzzy, indistinct picture used to replace a clear and
perfectly comprehensibl
62 matches
Mail list logo
