On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:32:15 -0700, Nick Stinemates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>Yo, no one here is a child
Hi Nick,
Actually, there are a number of young people on the list. So let's keep things
civil and try to avoid using harsh language.
Thanks!
Jean-Paul
--
http://mail.python.or
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 04:10:48PM -0700, Sverker Nilsson wrote:
> do i dare to open a thread about this?
>
> come on you braver men
>
> we are at least not bought by g***le
>
> but why? others have said it so many times i think
>
> :-
>
> but why? a few syntactic 'cleanups' for the cost
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:16:35 -0700, Aaron Watters wrote:
> The big deal is that I would love to see Django become the standard
> platform for web development, for example. That will be much less
> likely if 60% of the contributed tools for Django don't work for Python
> 3000 and 20% don't work fo
On Apr 17, 12:27 pm, Michael Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's the big deal?
The big deal is that I would love to see Django
become the standard platform for web development,
for example. That will be much less likely if
60% of the contributed tools for Django don't work
for Python 3000
On Apr 18, 1:39 am, Sverker Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some whine. Some just don't care. Why not whine?
Whining and ranting is actually good for the psyche. It is better to
get it out of your system.
As for your original post, no doubt there are substantial downsides to
introducing Py3
Robin Becker schrieb:
> I'm in the process of attempting a straightforward port of a relatively
> simple package which does most of its work by writing out files with a
> more or less complicated set of possible encodings. So far I have used
> all the 2to3 tools and a lot of effort, but still do
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
.
> You know what I was just wondering about? All these C-written
> cross-platform libraries (which Python users benefit from, most probably
> including evven you) that run on different unixes & windows, which are a
> much greater diversity to handle than the not-even-yet
Diez B. Roggisch schrieb:
>> And I have been benefiting from Python in general, so far. Thanks,
>> community.
>>
>> But now... I'll probably stop posting here for now, & I may stop other
>> things too.
>>
>> Just my 2c.
>
> You know what I was just wondering about? All these C-written
> cross-pla
On Apr 18, 1:27 am, John Machin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
> >> And I have been benefiting from Python in general, so far. Thanks,
> >> community.
>
> >> But now... I'll probably stop posting here for now, & I may stop other
> >> things too.
>
> >> Just my 2c.
>
> > You kn
On Apr 18, 12:59 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And I have been benefiting from Python in general, so far. Thanks,
> > community.
>
> > But now... I'll probably stop posting here for now, & I may stop other
> > things too.
>
> > Just my 2c.
>
> You know what I was just wonder
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
>> And I have been benefiting from Python in general, so far. Thanks,
>> community.
>>
>> But now... I'll probably stop posting here for now, & I may stop other
>> things too.
>>
>> Just my 2c.
>
> You know what I was just wondering about? All these C-written
> cross-platf
> And I have been benefiting from Python in general, so far. Thanks,
> community.
>
> But now... I'll probably stop posting here for now, & I may stop other
> things too.
>
> Just my 2c.
You know what I was just wondering about? All these C-written
cross-platform libraries (which Python users b
Aaron Watters wrote:
> What I'm saying is that, for example, there are a lot
> of cool tools out there for using Python to manipulate
> postscript and latex and such. Most of those tools
> require no maintenance, and the authors are not paying
> any attention to them, and they aren't interested in
On Apr 16, 3:33 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Wow, I'd venture that the division changes with ints are the only
> thing I'm really concerned about...
Oh I forgot about this one. Yes, I think it's a mistake to
adopt a different convention for division than C/C++/java/C#/
On Apr 17, 4:41 am, Sverker Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 12:02 am, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 12:40 pm, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 12:27 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aar
On 16 Apr, 15:16, Marco Mariani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Do you mean Ruby's track in providing backward compatibility is better
> than Python's?
>
> Googling for that a bit, I would reckon otherwise.
So would I, but then it isn't the Ruby developers that are *promising*
to break backward com
On Apr 17, 12:02 am, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 12:40 pm, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 12:27 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > I don't get it. It ain't
On Apr 17, 12:02 am, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 12:40 pm, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 12:27 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > I don't get it. It ain't
On Apr 16, 12:40 pm, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 12:27 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I don't get it. It ain't broke. Don't fix it.
>
> > So how would you have done the old-style cla
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aaron Watters wrote:
> > The cost paid for these minor improvements is too high in my
> > book. But I suppose if it is going to happen do it sooner
> > rather than later. Just *please* *please* don't
> > systematically b
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:32:00 -0700, Aaron Watters wrote:
>> > Perhaps this will inspire improved linters and better coding
>> > practices
>>
>> Better coding practices such as extensive unit tests?
>
> Greetings from Earth. What planet are you from? :)
>
> There is always the possibility th
Aaron Watters wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:33 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either you evolve the
>> language and break things, or you keep it static and nothing breaks.
>
> I disagree. You can add lots of cool
> stuff without breaking the ex
On Apr 16, 12:52 pm, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:33 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either you evolve the
> > language and break things, or you keep it static and nothing breaks.
>
> I disagree. You can add
On Apr 16, 2:52 pm, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree. You can add lots of cool
> stuff without breaking the existing code base, mostly.
> For example the minor changes to the way ints will work will
> effect almost no programs.
Wow, I'd venture that the division changes wit
> > Also in the case of C/java etc changing the infrastructure
> > is less scary because you usually find out about problems
> > when the compile or link fails. For Python you may not find
> > out about it until the program has been run many times.
> > Perhaps this will inspire improved linters a
En Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:09:05 -0300, Aaron Watters
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> On Apr 16, 11:15 am, Gabriel Genellina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 16 abr, 09:56, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > In my opinion python's adherence to backwards compatibility
>> > has been a bi
On Apr 16, 2:33 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either you evolve the
> language and break things, or you keep it static and nothing breaks.
I disagree. You can add lots of cool
stuff without breaking the existing code base, mostly.
For e
On Apr 16, 12:10 pm, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 1:42 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The only reason to not make the
> > changes is that old, crufty, unmaintained libraries & applications
> > might depend on them somehow. If that's more important to
On Apr 16, 1:42 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only reason to not make the
> changes is that old, crufty, unmaintained libraries & applications
> might depend on them somehow. If that's more important to you, what
> you really want is a language who's specs are frozen - much
On Apr 16, 10:40 am, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 12:27 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I don't get it. It ain't broke. Don't fix it.
>
> > So how would you have done the old-style cla
> Since you don't care about any of the changes or features, and you
> don't care if your users care, I'm not sure why you aren't just using
> python 2.1. It's not like it's being erased via time machine. "Just
> keep using the old thing" is a perfectly valid and extremely common
> futureproofing
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 12:27 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't get it. It ain't broke. Don't fix it.
> >
> > So how would you have do
On Apr 16, 12:27 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't get it. It ain't broke. Don't fix it.
>
> So how would you have done the old-style class to new-style class
> transition?
I'd ignore it. I never understood
On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't get it. It ain't broke. Don't fix it.
So how would you have done the old-style class to new-style class
transition?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe there is a secret desire in the Python
> community to remain a fringe minority underdog
> forever?
I'm sure anyone who has given it any thought understands that
the fringe minority situation is a lot more fun in so
On Apr 16, 11:15 am, Gabriel Genellina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16 abr, 09:56, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion python's adherence to backwards compatibility
> > has been a bit mythological anyway -- many new python versions
> > have broken my old code for no good
On 15 abr, 13:58, Michael Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> After parsing this thread through a noise filter, it appears the main
> concern is not the converting of _python code_ from 2 to 3, but rather
> converting extensions written in C, or when python is embedded in a C
> program. The APIs
On 16 abr, 09:56, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my opinion python's adherence to backwards compatibility
> has been a bit mythological anyway -- many new python versions
> have broken my old code for no good reason. This is an irritant
> when you have thousands of users out there
On Apr 16, 9:16 am, Marco Mariani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Do you mean Ruby's track in providing backward compatibility is better
> than Python's?
>
> Googling for that a bit, I would reckon otherwise.
I can't comment on that. Ruby is a lot younger
-- I'd expect it to still be stabilizing a
Aaron Watters wrote:
> stuff out there you can get so easily -- all the stuff that py3k
> will break -- most of which won't get ported -- and if it does can
> we be sure it will be tested properly? No, probably you will end
> up beta testing someone's quick port of what used to be rock
> solid co
On Apr 15, 12:30 am, Sverker Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No one forces me, but sooner or later they will want a Python 3.0 and
> then a 3.1 whatever.
>
> I don't want that fuzz. As about the C versions, I am not that
> worried. What's your point?
>
> I just like want to write a program tha
> To be frank, no innovation. Just changes, no progress. And yes, I am
> pd.
"anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering"
> Somebody compared it with MS stuff. Yes.
It's not similar at all. MS will first force all your customers/users to
upgrade to their newest software, at the same time s
Thanks for your well-formulated article
Providing the Python infrastructure with my program doesn't apply
since I am providing a program/library that is intended to be
general.
So it doesn't help.
All that py3k does to me, it seems, is some extra work.
To be frank, no innovation. Just changes,
"Sverker Nilsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| What serious reports?
http://wiki.python.org/moin/Early2to3Migrations
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sverker Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No one forces me, but sooner or later they will want a Python 3.0 and
> then a 3.1 whatever.
>
> I don't want that fuzz. As about the C versions, I am not that
> worried. What's your point?
>
> I just like want to wri
Chris McAloney wrote:
> *Have* you tried the 2to3 tool? It might help to lessen your
> concerns a bit. Yes, Python 3 is different from 2.x, but we've known
> that it was going to be for years and, as has already been pointed
> out, the devs are being very careful to minimize the pain that t
On 15-Apr-08, at 12:30 AM, Sverker Nilsson wrote:
> No one forces me, but sooner or later they will want a Python 3.0 and
> then a 3.1 whatever.
>
> I don't want that fuzz. As about the C versions, I am not that
> worried. What's your point?
>
> I just like want to write a program that will stay w
Sverker Nilsson wrote:
> [about code supporting multiple Python versions]
> When it has been the fuzz with versions before, then I could have the
> same code still work with older versions. But now it seems I have to
> fork TWO codes. [...]
I don't think many people have ported their C extensions
On Apr 14, 11:07 pm, Sverker Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What serious reports?
You almost had me collecting a list of reports/references. Almost :)
Google and you'll find them.
Regards,
Daniel
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
En Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:30:05 -0300, Sverker Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> No one forces me, but sooner or later they will want a Python 3.0 and
> then a 3.1 whatever.
Welcome to the software industry!
If it isn't Python changing, it's the operating system, the processor
architecture,
No one forces me, but sooner or later they will want a Python 3.0 and
then a 3.1 whatever.
I don't want that fuzz. As about the C versions, I am not that
worried. What's your point?
I just like want to write a program that will stay working. And maybe
I can go on with something else hopefully tha
En Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:38:56 -0300, Sverker Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> On Apr 15, 3:50 am, "Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> En Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:02:38 -0300, Sverker Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> escribió:
>>
>> > I tried out py3k on my project,http://guppy-pe.
On Apr 15, 3:50 am, "Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> En Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:02:38 -0300, Sverker Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> escribió:
>
> > I tried out py3k on my project,http://guppy-pe.sf.net
>
> And what happened?
> I've seen that your project already supports Python 2.6 so t
On Apr 15, 2:58 am, ajaksu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 8:10 pm, Sverker Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> do i dare to
> open a thread about this?
>
> Yeah, you sure do!
>
> > come on you braver men
>
> Yeah!
>
> > we are at least not bought by g***le
>
> Hell no!
>
> > but why? oth
En Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:02:38 -0300, Sverker Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> I tried out py3k on my project, http://guppy-pe.sf.net
And what happened?
I've seen that your project already supports Python 2.6 so the migration
path to 3.0 should be easy.
--
Gabriel Genellina
--
http://
On Apr 15, 2:58 am, ajaksu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 8:10 pm, Sverker Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> do i dare to
> open a thread about this?
>
> Yeah, you sure do!
>
> > come on you braver men
>
> Yeah!
>
> > we are at least not bought by g***le
>
> Hell no!
>
> > but why? oth
On Apr 15, 1:34 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sverker Nilsson wrote:
> > do i dare to open a thread about this?
>
> > come on you braver men
>
> > we are at least not bought by g***le
>
> > but why? others have said it so many times i think
>
> > :-
>
> > but why? a few syntact
On Apr 14, 8:10 pm, Sverker Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> do i dare to open a thread about this?
Yeah, you sure do!
> come on you braver men
Yeah!
> we are at least not bought by g***le
Hell no!
> but why? others have said it so many times i think
Huh?!
> :-
?! Whatever!
> but why?
Sverker Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> do i dare to open a thread about this?
If you do so, please use less inflammatory language. You can't expect
a reasoned debate if you use such hyperbole and emotional attacks.
Discussion is welcome. Flaming isn't.
--
\ "He who lau
Sverker Nilsson wrote:
> do i dare to open a thread about this?
>
> come on you braver men
>
> we are at least not bought by g***le
>
> but why? others have said it so many times i think
>
> :-
>
> but why? a few syntactic 'cleanups' for the cost of a huge rewrite of
> all the code that h
do i dare to open a thread about this?
come on you braver men
we are at least not bought by g***le
but why? others have said it so many times i think
:-
but why? a few syntactic 'cleanups' for the cost of a huge rewrite of
all the code that have been builtup from all the beginning when th
61 matches
Mail list logo
