Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)
Steve Holden Wrote:
We are also attempting to enable tax-deductible fund raising to increase the likelihood of David's finding support. Perhaps we need to think about a broader campaign to increase the quality of the python 3 libraries. I find it very annoying that the #python IRC group still has "Don't use Python 3" in it's topic. They adamantly refuse to remove it until there is better library support, and they are the guys who see the issues day in day out so it is hard to argue with them (and I don't think an autocratic decision-making process would be appropriate).
Yes, #python keeps the text "It's too early to use Python 3.x" in its topic. Library support is the only reason. -- Regards, Stephen Thorne Development Engineer
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Stephen Thorne <stephen@thorne.id.au> wrote:
We are also attempting to enable tax-deductible fund raising to increase the likelihood of David's finding support. Perhaps we need to think about a broader campaign to increase the quality of the python 3 libraries. I find it very annoying that the #python IRC group still has "Don't use Python 3" in it's topic. They adamantly refuse to remove it until there is better library support, and they are the guys who see the issues day in day out so it is hard to argue with them (and I don't think an autocratic decision-making process would be appropriate).
Yes, #python keeps the text "It's too early to use Python 3.x" in its topic. Library support is the only reason.
I do not know what are you intending to do, but my opinion that fund raising for patching library is a waste of money. PSF should concentrate on enhancing tools to make lives of library supporters easier. I do not want to become a maintainer, and I believe there was a lot of spam about this topic from me. The latest thread was in http://bugs.python.org/issue9008 in short: `pydotorg` tools - theres is no: 1. separate commit notifications for the module with ability to reply to dedicated group for review 2. separate bug tracker category for my module with giving users ability to change every property of it 3. bug tracker timeline for the module that includes ticket changes, wiki edits, commits and everything else. Filtered. 4. roadmap page with actual status, plans and coverage 5. dashboard page with links to all the above `python development tools`: 1. no way to get all related code for the module 1.1. source code location (repository, branches) 1.2. source code components (source file, tests, documentation) 2. no code coverage (test/user story/rfc/pep) 3. no convenient way to run module-related tests http://bugs.python.org/issue9027 4. no code review management process 5. no way to notify interested parties -- anatoly t.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:44 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Stephen Thorne <stephen@thorne.id.au> wrote:
We are also attempting to enable tax-deductible fund raising to increase the likelihood of David's finding support. Perhaps we need to think about a broader campaign to increase the quality of the python 3 libraries. I find it very annoying that the #python IRC group still has "Don't use Python 3" in it's topic. They adamantly refuse to remove it until there is better library support, and they are the guys who see the issues day in day out so it is hard to argue with them (and I don't think an autocratic decision-making process would be appropriate).
Yes, #python keeps the text "It's too early to use Python 3.x" in its topic. Library support is the only reason.
I do not know what are you intending to do, but my opinion that fund raising for patching library is a waste of money. PSF should concentrate on enhancing tools to make lives of library supporters easier. I do not want to become a maintainer, and I believe there was a lot of spam about this topic from me. The latest thread was in http://bugs.python.org/issue9008 in short:
Awesome. I plan on wasting as much money on the useless effort of moving python 3 forward as humanly possible.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:19:37 pm Jesse Noller wrote:
Awesome. I plan on wasting as much money on the useless effort of moving python 3 forward as humanly possible.
I'm sorry, but if that's sarcasm, it's far too subtle for me :(
Yes, it is. See: http://jessenoller.com/2010/05/20/announcing-python-sprint-sponsorship/ This, in my mind is but a start. Along with RDM's sponsorship for the email module, the PSF and the community as a whole should be spending time and money (if they can) to port and help push Python 3 along. Therefore, I was responding directly to Anatoly's: "I do not know what are you intending to do, but my opinion that fund raising for patching library is a waste of money" To which my response stands: I intend on, based on his opinion, on wasting as much money as I can. jesse
On 6/18/2010 10:24 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
http://jessenoller.com/2010/05/20/announcing-python-sprint-sponsorship/
This does not specify what expenses you are thinking of covering. Food is the most obvious. Anyway, this got me to think about offering my house at a site for US east coast mid-atlantic sprints (near I95, halfway betweenn NY and WDC, FIOS internet, TV/Playstation/Netflix for breaks ;-). Terry Jan Reedy
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
On 6/18/2010 10:24 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
http://jessenoller.com/2010/05/20/announcing-python-sprint-sponsorship/
This does not specify what expenses you are thinking of covering. Food is the most obvious.
Anyway, this got me to think about offering my house at a site for US east coast mid-atlantic sprints (near I95, halfway betweenn NY and WDC, FIOS internet, TV/Playstation/Netflix for breaks ;-).
Terry Jan Reedy
Yup, I'm putting the site together now - essentially what's covered is "anything up to this amount" - meaning, if you spend 200$ on room space, then this could go to that. Or 200$ in food for 20 people, etc. We'll have basic guidelines. jesse
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 07:44, anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com>wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Stephen Thorne <stephen@thorne.id.au> wrote:
We are also attempting to enable tax-deductible fund raising to increase the likelihood of David's finding support. Perhaps we need to think about a broader campaign to increase the quality of the python 3 libraries. I find it very annoying that the #python IRC group still has "Don't use Python 3" in it's topic. They adamantly refuse to remove it until there is better library support, and they are the guys who see the issues day in day out so it is hard to argue with them (and I don't think an autocratic decision-making process would be appropriate).
Yes, #python keeps the text "It's too early to use Python 3.x" in its topic. Library support is the only reason.
I do not know what are you intending to do, but my opinion that fund raising for patching library is a waste of money. PSF should concentrate on enhancing tools to make lives of library supporters easier. I do not want to become a maintainer, and I believe there was a lot of spam about this topic from me. The latest thread was in http://bugs.python.org/issue9008 in short:
`pydotorg` tools - theres is no: 1. separate commit notifications for the module with ability to reply to dedicated group for review
If you know how to set this up, feel free to implement it.
2. separate bug tracker category for my module with giving users ability to change every property of it
The Python bug tracker isn't the place for "my module". The second part of this sentence has been brought up and I think it's a good point. For example, those who lack developer privileges can't assign issues to themselves. I think Twisted's tracker does well in this area, as the fields are inclusive rather than exclusive. Assignment is open to anyone willing to work on it, and the field is used to prod the next responsible person into acting (I think, correct me if I'm wrong).
3. bug tracker timeline for the module that includes ticket changes, wiki edits, commits and everything else. Filtered.
That seems like information overload. It might be cool to see all of that, but I'm not sure what the gain is. Some modules get worked on in spurts and sometimes modules don't see action for months. It doesn't actually mean anything, though.
4. roadmap page with actual status, plans and coverage 5. dashboard page with links to all the above
If you know how to do this, you are more than welcome to whip up some code and show how it would help. `python development tools`:
1. no way to get all related code for the module 1.1. source code location (repository, branches) 1.2. source code components (source file, tests, documentation)
What exactly do you mean? Since you have submitted several issues, some with patches, I have a hard time believing that you've done all of that work without knowing where any of that information was.
2. no code coverage (test/user story/rfc/pep)
If you know of a way to incorporate code coverage tools and metrics into the current process, I believe a number of people would be interested. There currently exists some coverage tool that runs on the current repository, but I'm not sure of its location or status.
4. no code review management process
I agree, this is an area that could use work. It has been suggested that Rietveld be incorporated into Roundup both visually ("upload to Rietveld" button) and as a part of the workflow (possible requirement before commit). As with many of these comments, lack of time and a lack of available volunteers are two of many answers as to why there is no traction on this.
5. no way to notify interested parties
I'm not sure what this is specifically addressing. anatoly t.
On 18.06.10 17:04, Brian Curtin wrote:
[...] 2. no code coverage (test/user story/rfc/pep)
If you know of a way to incorporate code coverage tools and metrics into the current process, I believe a number of people would be interested. There currently exists some coverage tool that runs on the current repository, but I'm not sure of its location or status.
http://coverage.livinglogic.de/ I haven't touched the code in a year, but the job's still running.
[...]
Servus, Walter
On 6/18/2010 12:32 PM, Walter Dörwald wrote:
I am a bit puzzled as to the meaning of the gray/red/green bars since the correlation between coverage % and bars is not very high.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 13:53, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
On 6/18/2010 12:32 PM, Walter Dörwald wrote:
I am a bit puzzled as to the meaning of the gray/red/green bars since the correlation between coverage % and bars is not very high.
Gray is lines that are unexecutable (comments, etc.), green are lines that were executed, and red is lines not executed.
Am 18.06.2010 um 22:53 schrieb Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu>:
On 6/18/2010 12:32 PM, Walter Dörwald wrote:
I am a bit puzzled as to the meaning of the gray/red/green bars since the correlation between coverage % and bars is not very high.
The gray bar is the uncoverable part of the source (empty lines, comments etc.), the green bar is the covered part (i.e. those lines that really got executed) and the red bar is the uncovered part (i.e. Those lines that could have been executed but weren't). So coverage is green / (green + red) Just click on the coverage header to sort by coverage and you *will* see a correlation. Servus, Walter
anatoly techtonik writes:
I do not know what are you intending to do, but my opinion that fund raising for patching library is a waste of money.
Of course it's not a waste of money. The need is real, so as long as the PSF and other organizations (GSoC) choose reasonable projects/ people to support, progress will be steady. Merely the sense that real resources are flowing into the stdlib from outside the volunteer core will encourage more volunteers as well.
PSF should concentrate on enhancing tools to make lives of library supporters easier. I do not want to become a maintainer,
Well, the current maintainers, while not yet happy with the state of the infrastructure, have been steadily engaged in improving it by adding features that have consensus support. But getting consensus support is not easy. Eg, I thought that with three plausible candidates, of which Mercurial was obviously satisfactory (although I preferred git, myself, and a at least couple people advocated Bazaar strongly), a switch to a dVCS was a no-brainer. It wasn't. Several people opposed it strongly until it became clear that in theory at least it would require *no* changes to current workflow (although I think most of those developers will find much to like about the changes Mercurial will bring). And even now implementation is hanging up on the requirement that it not affect Windows-based developers adversely ... and it turns out that even being Python-based is nowhere near enough to guarantee that, but rather it requires further effort before that will become reality -- and it's not forthcoming from the Mercurial developers, who unsurprisingly like Mercurial enough to deal with the minor flaws. IMO, if you want to improve the infrastructure, you need to work on getting consensus behind a few of your proposals, rather than making one after another and not following up with code or a PEP.
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:34:41 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:
And even now implementation is hanging up on the requirement that it not affect Windows-based developers adversely ... and it turns out that even being Python-based is nowhere near enough to guarantee that, but rather it requires further effort before that will become reality -- and it's not forthcoming from the Mercurial developers, who unsurprisingly like Mercurial enough to deal with the minor flaws.
FWIW, the EOL extension is now part of Mercurial: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/EolExtension Antoine.
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 01:51:04PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
FWIW, the EOL extension is now part of Mercurial: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/EolExtension
Should we all move soon now? Any target date you have in mind, Antoine? -- Senthil
On Jun 19, 2010, at 05:43 PM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 01:51:04PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
FWIW, the EOL extension is now part of Mercurial: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/EolExtension
Should we all move soon now? Any target date you have in mind, Antoine?
I believe the plan was to migrate right after 2.7 final is released. I hope that is still the plan. Since that is only 2 weeks away, are we ready? -Barry
Am 19.06.2010 14:33, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
On Jun 19, 2010, at 05:43 PM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 01:51:04PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
FWIW, the EOL extension is now part of Mercurial: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/EolExtension
Should we all move soon now? Any target date you have in mind, Antoine?
I believe the plan was to migrate right after 2.7 final is released.
I don't think so. The last update to the plan that I know of was in http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-February/097497.html and it said that we would migrate on May 1. This hasn't happened, but there was no update to the plan since (that I know of).
I hope that is still the plan. Since that is only 2 weeks away, are we ready?
Not nearly. AFAICT, the conversion process isn't complete yet, and the hook scripts are missing. Also, I would really like to see a /final/ demo installation *before* the switchover; because these things are all missing, the final demo installation is missing, as well. Regards, Martin
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:43:02 +0530 Senthil Kumaran <orsenthil@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 01:51:04PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
FWIW, the EOL extension is now part of Mercurial: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/EolExtension
Should we all move soon now? Any target date you have in mind, Antoine?
I should point out that I am in no way responsible for the migration. I think Dirkjan and Brett said they would tackle this after the 2.7 release. But they'd better answer by themselves :)
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
I should point out that I am in no way responsible for the migration. I think Dirkjan and Brett said they would tackle this after the 2.7 release. But they'd better answer by themselves :)
I'm willing to help out if needed. Can't hurt to have another set of hands :) I'm sure there are others in the Mercurial/Python community that would be willing to help too! cheers james
Am 19.06.2010 15:05, schrieb James Mills:
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Antoine Pitrou<solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
I should point out that I am in no way responsible for the migration. I think Dirkjan and Brett said they would tackle this after the 2.7 release. But they'd better answer by themselves :)
I'm willing to help out if needed. Can't hurt to have another set of hands :) I'm sure there are others in the Mercurial/Python community that would be willing to help too!
Take a look at http://hg.python.org/pymigr/ What I *think* is missing is all the hook scripts (but you would need to check with Dirkjan whether they are already somewhere). In theory, I would expect that you can run this migration suite yourself, and get a working installation - but I never tried myself. See also PEP 385, which is the master plan. I'm not sure whether the approach to branches has been approved (or who could really approve it); I just notice that the current conversion produces a ridiculously large repository (which fails to download with older versions of hg because of size). On the meta level, what seems to be missing as well is a clear view on what the status is - so if you manage to get it working somehow, don't forget to post what you think the status is. Regards, Martin
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 05:42, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:43:02 +0530 Senthil Kumaran <orsenthil@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 01:51:04PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
FWIW, the EOL extension is now part of Mercurial: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/EolExtension
Should we all move soon now? Any target date you have in mind, Antoine?
I should point out that I am in no way responsible for the migration. I think Dirkjan and Brett said they would tackle this after the 2.7 release. But they'd better answer by themselves :)
WIth the eol extension dealt with, it means all hold-ups are on python-dev's end, not Mercurial's which is good. As for what is left exactly, Dirkjan can answer better than I can; at this point I am simply the guy trying to help keep the momentum going while not doing any technical work.
You mean Twisted support, because library support is at the point where there are fewer actively maintained packages not yet ported than those which are. Of course if your Python experience is hyper-focused to one framework that isn't ported yet, it will certainly seem like a lot, and you guys who run #Python are clearly hyper-focused on Twisted. Great example of the current state: about an hour ago I needed an inotify Python package for a Py3 project. I googled for "Python inotify", found pyinotify, saw that they have several recent releases but no mention of Py3, typed "sudo emerge -av pyinotify", and it installed pyinotify for Python 2.6, 3.1, and 3.2_pre at the same time. Run python interactively, imports and works great. Portage (Gentoo's package system, emerge being the primary command) is Python based and fully ported to Python 3. Most of my workstations and production servers report "/usr/bin/python --version" as "Python 3.1.2" (Python 2.6 is /usr/bin/python2), my Apache's mod_wsgi is compiled for Python 3 and save for a few Django and Trac sites (fastcgi) all of my Python-based webapps run on it. CherryPy and SQLAlchemy have had Py3 support for some time. I can name in a short list the legacy Python packages I use: - Django - Trac - Mercurial (they have a Summer of Code student working to port it now) - PIL (apparently will have a Python 3 release out soon) - pygtk (Python 3 support planned for Gnome 3 in a few months) - xmpppy The list of Python 3 packages I use regularly is at least 50 names long and I have only contributed to porting a dozen or so of those. This anti-Py3 rhetoric is damaging to the community and needs to stop. We're moving forward toward Python 3.2 and beyond, complaining about it only saps valuable developer time (including your own) from getting these libraries you need ported faster. On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Stephen Thorne <stephen@thorne.id.au>wrote:
Yes, #python keeps the text "It's too early to use Python 3.x" in its topic. Library support is the only reason.
On 19/06/2010 11:59, Arc Riley wrote:
You mean Twisted support, because library support is at the point where there are fewer actively maintained packages not yet ported than those which are. Of course if your Python experience is hyper-focused to one framework that isn't ported yet, it will certainly seem like a lot, and you guys who run #Python are clearly hyper-focused on Twisted.
Great example of the current state: about an hour ago I needed an inotify Python package for a Py3 project. I googled for "Python inotify", found pyinotify, saw that they have several recent releases but no mention of Py3, typed "sudo emerge -av pyinotify", and it installed pyinotify for Python 2.6, 3.1, and 3.2_pre at the same time. Run python interactively, imports and works great.
Portage (Gentoo's package system, emerge being the primary command) is Python based and fully ported to Python 3. Most of my workstations and production servers report "/usr/bin/python --version" as "Python 3.1.2" (Python 2.6 is /usr/bin/python2), my Apache's mod_wsgi is compiled for Python 3 and save for a few Django and Trac sites (fastcgi) all of my Python-based webapps run on it. CherryPy and SQLAlchemy have had Py3 support for some time.
I can name in a short list the legacy Python packages I use:
- Django - Trac - Mercurial (they have a Summer of Code student working to port it now) - PIL (apparently will have a Python 3 release out soon) - pygtk (Python 3 support planned for Gnome 3 in a few months) - xmpppy
The list of Python 3 packages I use regularly is at least 50 names long and I have only contributed to porting a dozen or so of those.
This anti-Py3 rhetoric is damaging to the community and needs to stop. We're moving forward toward Python 3.2 and beyond, complaining about it only saps valuable developer time (including your own) from getting these libraries you need ported faster.
Fair comment, but how many people are waiting for numpy for Python 3? I'd guess that it's many, many thousands, given that there are people such as myself who use it indirectly, in my case via matplotlib. Note that I am aware that the numpy Python 3 support is very close to release. Kindest regards. Mark Lawrence.
On 10:59 am, arcriley@gmail.com wrote:
You mean Twisted support, because library support is at the point where there are fewer actively maintained packages not yet ported than those which are. Of course if your Python experience is hyper-focused to one framework that isn't ported yet, it will certainly seem like a lot, and you guys who run #Python are clearly hyper-focused on Twisted.
Arc, This isn't about Twisted. Let's not waste everyone's time by trying to make it into a conflict between Twisted users and the rest of the Python community. You listed six other major packages that you yourself use that aren't available on Python 3 yet, so why are you trying to say here that this is all about Twisted?
[snip]
This anti-Py3 rhetoric is damaging to the community and needs to stop. We're moving forward toward Python 3.2 and beyond, complaining about it only saps valuable developer time (including your own) from getting these libraries you need ported faster.
No, it's not damaging. Critical self-evaluation is a useful tool. Trying to silence differing perspectives is what's damaging to the community. Jean-Paul
Just because legacy Python needs to be kept around for a bit longer for a few uses does not mean that "Python 3 is not ready yet". Any decent package system can have two or more versions of Python installed at the same time. It is not "critical self-evaluation" to repeat "Python 3 is not ready" as litany in #Python and your supporting website. I use the word "litany" here because #Python refers users to what appears to be a religious website http://python-commandments.org/python3.html I have further witnessed (and even been the other party to) you and other ops in #Python telling package developers, who have clearly said that they are working to port their legacy package to Py3, that "Python 3 is not ready". One of our Summer of Code students this year actually included in his application that he was told (strongly) in #Python that he shouldn't be working with Py3 - even after he expressed his intent to apply under the PSF to help with the Py3 migration effort as his project. Besides rally against it what have you, as a Twisted developer, done regarding the Python 3 migration process? On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 8:12 AM, <exarkun@twistedmatrix.com> wrote:
On 10:59 am, arcriley@gmail.com wrote:
You mean Twisted support, because library support is at the point where there are fewer actively maintained packages not yet ported than those which are. Of course if your Python experience is hyper-focused to one framework that isn't ported yet, it will certainly seem like a lot, and you guys who run #Python are clearly hyper-focused on Twisted.
Arc,
This isn't about Twisted. Let's not waste everyone's time by trying to make it into a conflict between Twisted users and the rest of the Python community.
You listed six other major packages that you yourself use that aren't available on Python 3 yet, so why are you trying to say here that this is all about Twisted?
[snip]
This anti-Py3 rhetoric is damaging to the community and needs to stop. We're moving forward toward Python 3.2 and beyond, complaining about it only saps valuable developer time (including your own) from getting these libraries you need ported faster.
No, it's not damaging. Critical self-evaluation is a useful tool. Trying to silence differing perspectives is what's damaging to the community.
Jean-Paul
Am 19.06.2010 15:09, schrieb Arc Riley:
Just because legacy Python needs to be kept around for a bit longer for a few uses does not mean that "Python 3 is not ready yet". Any decent package system can have two or more versions of Python installed at the same time.
It is not "critical self-evaluation" to repeat "Python 3 is not ready" as litany in #Python and your supporting website. I use the word "litany" here because #Python refers users to what appears to be a religious website http://python-commandments.org/python3.html
I have further witnessed (and even been the other party to) you and other ops in #Python telling package developers, who have clearly said that they are working to port their legacy package to Py3, that "Python 3 is not ready". One of our Summer of Code students this year actually included in his application that he was told (strongly) in #Python that he shouldn't be working with Py3 - even after he expressed his intent to apply under the PSF to help with the Py3 migration effort as his project.
Ouch. Looks like it's time for the PSU to release the 10-ton wei
On 19/06/2010 14:43, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 19.06.2010 15:09, schrieb Arc Riley:
Just because legacy Python needs to be kept around for a bit longer for a few uses does not mean that "Python 3 is not ready yet". Any decent package system can have two or more versions of Python installed at the same time.
It is not "critical self-evaluation" to repeat "Python 3 is not ready" as litany in #Python and your supporting website. I use the word "litany" here because #Python refers users to what appears to be a religious website http://python-commandments.org/python3.html
I have further witnessed (and even been the other party to) you and other ops in #Python telling package developers, who have clearly said that they are working to port their legacy package to Py3, that "Python 3 is not ready". One of our Summer of Code students this year actually included in his application that he was told (strongly) in #Python that he shouldn't be working with Py3 - even after he expressed his intent to apply under the PSF to help with the Py3 migration effort as his project.
Ouch. Looks like it's time for the PSU to release the 10-ton wei
Please raise a new issue, the weight should be 16 ton to conform to Python standards. Cheers. Mark Lawrence.
On 01:09 pm, arcriley@gmail.com wrote:
[snip] It is not "critical self-evaluation" to repeat "Python 3 is not ready" as litany in #Python and your supporting website. I use the word "litany" here because #Python refers users to what appears to be a religious website http://python-commandments.org/python3.html
It's not my website. I don't own the domain, I don't control the hosting, I didn't generate the content, I have no access to change anything on it. I've barely even frequent #python in the last three years. Perhaps you were directing those comments at Stephen Thorne though (although I don't know if he's any more involved in it than I am so don't take this as anything but idle speculation).
I have further witnessed (and even been the other party to) you and other ops in #Python telling package developers, who have clearly said that they are working to port their legacy package to Py3, that "Python 3 is not ready".
I'm not going to condone or condemn events which I didn't observe. However you've never witnessed me discouraging developers who were actively porting software to Python 3 because I've never done it. I'm sure this was an honest mistake and you simply confused me with someone else.
Besides rally against it what have you, as a Twisted developer, done regarding the Python 3 migration process?
This, however, I find extremely insulting. I don't answer to you. The only reason I'm replying at all is to correct the two pieces of misinformation in your message. I don't see how this discussion can go anywhere productive, so I'll do my best to make this my last post on the subject. Obviously I made a mistake posting to the thread at all. Jean-Paul
python-commandments.org is owned and hosted by the same person (Allen Short aka dash aka washort) as pound-python.org which is the "official" website for #Python and which links to it. #Python is co-managed by Stephen Thorne (aka Jerub) and Allen Short (aka dash aka washort). According to Freenode services, the channel operators include more than half the active Twisted Matrix developers, including yourself. Each of you has had the ability to change the topic at any time. I may have cast an overly broad net in including you, I don't have IRC logs to review. I do remember that you have contributed a great deal of time to helping people in #Python and that you were fairly active as a channel operator in #Python when the anti-Py3 rhetoric got started. Perhaps you can shine some light on who is actually responsible for promoting this? I'm sorry if we're in uncomfortable finger-pointing mode, but in the spirit of critical self-evaluation I think its time we take a long look at who is actually representing the Python community in operating our primary community help channel and whether that situation should continue. On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:28 AM, <exarkun@twistedmatrix.com> wrote:
On 01:09 pm, arcriley@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
It is not "critical self-evaluation" to repeat "Python 3 is not ready" as litany in #Python and your supporting website. I use the word "litany" here because #Python refers users to what appears to be a religious website http://python-commandments.org/python3.html
It's not my website. I don't own the domain, I don't control the hosting, I didn't generate the content, I have no access to change anything on it. I've barely even frequent #python in the last three years.
Perhaps you were directing those comments at Stephen Thorne though (although I don't know if he's any more involved in it than I am so don't take this as anything but idle speculation).
I have further witnessed (and even been the other party to) you and other
ops in #Python telling package developers, who have clearly said that they are working to port their legacy package to Py3, that "Python 3 is not ready".
I'm not going to condone or condemn events which I didn't observe.
However you've never witnessed me discouraging developers who were actively porting software to Python 3 because I've never done it. I'm sure this was an honest mistake and you simply confused me with someone else.
Besides rally against it what have you, as a Twisted developer, done
regarding the Python 3 migration process?
This, however, I find extremely insulting. I don't answer to you. The only reason I'm replying at all is to correct the two pieces of misinformation in your message.
I don't see how this discussion can go anywhere productive, so I'll do my best to make this my last post on the subject. Obviously I made a mistake posting to the thread at all.
Jean-Paul
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:14:51 -0400 Arc Riley <arcriley@gmail.com> wrote:
python-commandments.org is owned and hosted by the same person (Allen Short aka dash aka washort) as pound-python.org which is the "official" website for #Python and which links to it.
#Python is co-managed by Stephen Thorne (aka Jerub) and Allen Short (aka dash aka washort). According to Freenode services, the channel operators include more than half the active Twisted Matrix developers, including yourself. Each of you has had the ability to change the topic at any time.
I don't think it's constructive to treat the Twisted developers as an uniform society. I would expect #python (which I don't think I have ever participated in) to function like any community, where you don't make unilateral changes if others disagree with you. Jean-Paul said “I've barely even frequent #python in the last three years”. Knowing this, I don't know how he could impose a topic change on his own.
I'm sorry if we're in uncomfortable finger-pointing mode, but in the spirit of critical self-evaluation I think its time we take a long look at who is actually representing the Python community in operating our primary community help channel and whether that situation should continue.
Well, perhaps, but whether Python 3 is misrepresented shouldn't be the only metric, then. Regards Antoine.
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Arc Riley <arcriley@gmail.com> wrote:
python-commandments.org is owned and hosted by the same person (Allen Short aka dash aka washort) as pound-python.org which is the "official" website for #Python and which links to it.
#Python is co-managed by Stephen Thorne (aka Jerub) and Allen Short (aka dash aka washort). According to Freenode services, the channel operators include more than half the active Twisted Matrix developers, including yourself. Each of you has had the ability to change the topic at any time.
I may have cast an overly broad net in including you, I don't have IRC logs to review. I do remember that you have contributed a great deal of time to helping people in #Python and that you were fairly active as a channel operator in #Python when the anti-Py3 rhetoric got started. Perhaps you can shine some light on who is actually responsible for promoting this?
I'm sorry if we're in uncomfortable finger-pointing mode, but in the spirit of critical self-evaluation I think its time we take a long look at who is actually representing the Python community in operating our primary community help channel and whether that situation should continue.
Amen. I've heard about people being told not to use python3 on the irc *way* too many times for it to be all make believe. Geremy Condra
After reading the discussion in the previous thread, signed in to #python and verified that the intro message starts with a lie about python3. I also verified that the official #python site links to "Python Commandment Don't use Python 3… yet". The excuse that the negative commandment site is not part of the official site is does not wash. The #python site maintainer choose that as the authoritative word on the topic "On using Python 2.x or Python 3.x". Since a fair, half-intelligent person would know that the usability of Python3 depends on the user, this all strikes as conscious sabotage. To me, this, along with other reports, is really ugly. I do not wish to fight such people; but I would rather ask python3 questions in a pro- rather than anti-python3 atmosphere. #python is certainly not a place that I would refer new people to. Given that the 'owners' of #python have been asked and refuse to remove their negative-opinion-stated-as-leading-headline-fact, it seems to me that we need a separate #python3 channel. The topic could be "Welcome to discussion of Python3, the latest, greated version of Python." The first link might be to the current stable Python3 docs. Hence the '!' in the subject line. HoweverI have very little experience with IRC and consequently have little idea what getting a permanent, owned, channel like #python entails. Hence the '?' that follows. What do others think?
On Jun 19, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
HoweverI have very little experience with IRC and consequently have little idea what getting a permanent, owned, channel like #python entails. Hence the '?' that follows.
What do others think?
Sure, this is a good idea. Technically speaking, this is extremely easy. Somebody needs to "/msg chanserv register #python3" and that's about it. (In this case, that "someone" may need to be Brett Cannon, since he is the official group contact for Freenode regarding Python-related channels.) Practically speaking, you will need a group of at least a dozen contributors, each in a different timezone, who sit there all day answering questions :). Otherwise the ownership of the channel is just a signpost pointing at an empty room.
Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
On Jun 19, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
HoweverI have very little experience with IRC and consequently have little idea what getting a permanent, owned, channel like #python entails. Hence the '?' that follows.
What do others think?
Sure, this is a good idea.
Technically speaking, this is extremely easy. Somebody needs to "/msg chanserv register #python3" and that's about it. (In this case, that "someone" may need to be Brett Cannon, since he is the official group contact for Freenode regarding Python-related channels.)
Practically speaking, you will need a group of at least a dozen contributors, each in a different timezone, who sit there all day answering questions :). Otherwise the ownership of the channel is just a signpost pointing at an empty room.
Which is yet another reason I don't think it would be productive to attempt any kind of pre-emptive action against the #python team. They do serve a very useful purpose, and there is reasoned logic behind their position even if we might wish it were different. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 See Python Video! http://python.mirocommunity.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/ "All I want for my birthday is another birthday" - Ian Dury, 1942-2000
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Steve Holden <steve@holdenweb.com> wrote:
On Jun 19, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: Which is yet another reason I don't think it would be productive to attempt any kind of pre-emptive action against the #python team. They do serve a very useful purpose, and there is reasoned logic behind their
Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: position even if we might wish it were different.
regards Steve
I'm one of them so I'm a bit biased, but I'd say the biggest argument is that it's not set in stone (I'm trying to fix it and the regulars have been nothing but cooperative). Nobody from the #python people realized this was a huge thing for people up until today. It's been up there for a long time, and it's becoming less and less defensible every passing day (and that's a good thing!), so we're basically debating what ought to change and when. It's not really a matter of disliking, it's more of a matter of "um, it's still up there because nobody thought it had to go" :-) FWIW: I think a separate #python3 channel would be a really bad idea. thanks Laurens
Status update: Topic now says: NO LOL | Don't paste in here: use http://paste.pocoo.org/ | http://pound-python.org/ | Include Python version in questions | 2.x or 3.x? http://tinyurl.com/py2or3 | Tutorial: http://docs.python.org/tut/ | FAQ: http://effbot.org/pyfaq/ | New Programmer? Read http://tinyurl.com/thinkcspy2e | #python.web #wsgi #python-fr #python.de #python-es #python.tw #python.pl #python-br #python-nl Right now the shorturl points to the excellent http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nde/papers/teachpy3.html by Nick Efford, until we get the Py2.x vs Py3.x page as suggested above done, which will hopefully be in the next few hours. pound-python.org not touched yet because 1) the appropriate person isn't available right now 2) it's not as pressing a matter as the other thing. Thanks again for everyone's input on all of python-dev, #python, #python-offtopic, Laurens
Laurens Van Houtven wrote:
Status update:
Topic now says:
NO LOL | Don't paste in here: use http://paste.pocoo.org/ | http://pound-python.org/ | Include Python version in questions | 2.x or 3.x? http://tinyurl.com/py2or3 | Tutorial: http://docs.python.org/tut/ | FAQ: http://effbot.org/pyfaq/ | New Programmer? Read http://tinyurl.com/thinkcspy2e | #python.web #wsgi #python-fr #python.de #python-es #python.tw #python.pl #python-br #python-nl
Right now the shorturl points to the excellent http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nde/papers/teachpy3.html by Nick Efford, until we get the Py2.x vs Py3.x page as suggested above done, which will hopefully be in the next few hours.
pound-python.org not touched yet because 1) the appropriate person isn't available right now 2) it's not as pressing a matter as the other thing.
Thanks again for everyone's input on all of python-dev, #python, #python-offtopic, Laurens
And thanks for engaging so directly and responsively. The Python community has impressed me again with its maturity. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 See Python Video! http://python.mirocommunity.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/ "All I want for my birthday is another birthday" - Ian Dury, 1942-2000
Am 20.06.2010 18:20, schrieb Laurens Van Houtven:
2.x or 3.x? http://tinyurl.com/py2or3
If you are interested, we could host any material that somebody would want to provide on http://python.org/py2or3 (which would be one letter shorter :-). We could also make this a redirect. Regards, Martin
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 18:20, Laurens Van Houtven <lvh@laurensvh.be> wrote:
2.x or 3.x? http://tinyurl.com/py2or3
Wow. That's almost not an improvement... That link doesn't really help anyone choose at all. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 21 jun 2010, at 23:03, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 18:20, Laurens Van Houtven <lvh@laurensvh.be> wrote:
2.x or 3.x? http://tinyurl.com/py2or3
Wow. That's almost not an improvement... That link doesn't really help anyone choose at all.
Lennart, That part of the topic will be replaced after all feedback is gathered on the new article Laurens provided at: http://python-commandments.org/python3.html as stated earlier in this thread. Regards, Simon de Vlieger -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMH9j1AAoJEBBSHP7i+JXf8qQP/1w6Esl/x6S5+4lDqykx0R7w M9v6x8G2JvnthTkzh2hF76vruLc4e3SNs1QVCmirh5vjdkRHneJQ/2w/dRVKLi2b /tayYg5QyzjPL37wiAarRnsr7SSiwFgEUCHWZVAAw0dRvszYF/CoLmxTs8TQWs8o KnRuwO4UHuXvtarqO8JeY6gMR4bwcdEXHVNqdRK+PSoRXH9IVJky6IcqwtTC0bzf vyLlQZmVdiXIXvjYOxNQgoufmsC74daqqodzhxtCn2WTHSN2s1ws/gkxBqe+NZPz zYlAukVSiLz/YMcK3NGZYukseT8ZBGiNMuhPVt3lb4SY2LnKVRUiYqNCp9wpWCr/ ASmjaZDU0Dz5I+PHSNCWC4NHyTNClPy3b4b9y3LJ/6hpNZaC3wGHTX5IDxQKjt5u ajEgzstM2wuZDtVNQhcADHk2KWBsCoaE9c0tXKz40T7nIq15zbbGqhyTXjmyouLB JoonSPbS5Ap1UY6RGWEt6t3ZdVDDnMwJzL/DBMOiMgWZIVf7B6/VPy0j9jV9U0WV Sx+U5WnaYqKYo+ZkRTg1iI6dPuK5GTGph+2gzjdTHRVMFFPETxkFz/pBZJG4DOHq bkaKG2IFMWB+Ua9GrTJTbfmTP3YzgJwBG34ZWRLFSQu7zJaY1JdQqQK7z+SCJ5Lg toMEpj7z8KxfUAF84xBG =hTod -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 23:26, Simon de Vlieger <simon@ikanobori.jp> wrote:
That part of the topic will be replaced after all feedback is gathered on the new article Laurens provided at: http://python-commandments.org/python3.html as stated earlier in this thread.
OK, great, I missed that! -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Lennart Regebro <regebro@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 18:20, Laurens Van Houtven <lvh@laurensvh.be> wrote:
2.x or 3.x? http://tinyurl.com/py2or3
Wow. That's almost not an improvement... That link doesn't really help anyone choose at all.
-- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
Please read the rest of the thread: that's ancient information and no longer the latest work. We just removed the thing that offended people, so that the situation could be defused instantly and then we could work towards something everyone liked in a calm and productive environment. Laurens
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
After reading the discussion in the previous thread, signed in to #python and verified that the intro message starts with a lie about python3. I also verified that the official #python site links to "Python Commandment Don't use Python 3… yet". The excuse that the negative commandment site is not part of the official site is does not wash. The #python site maintainer choose that as the authoritative word on the topic "On using Python 2.x or Python 3.x".
Since a fair, half-intelligent person would know that the usability of Python3 depends on the user, this all strikes as conscious sabotage.
To me, this, along with other reports, is really ugly. I do not wish to fight such people; but I would rather ask python3 questions in a pro- rather than anti-python3 atmosphere. #python is certainly not a place that I would refer new people to.
Given that the 'owners' of #python have been asked and refuse to remove their negative-opinion-stated-as-leading-headline-fact, it seems to me that we need a separate #python3 channel. The topic could be "Welcome to discussion of Python3, the latest, greated version of Python." The first link might be to the current stable Python3 docs. Hence the '!' in the subject line.
HoweverI have very little experience with IRC and consequently have little idea what getting a permanent, owned, channel like #python entails. Hence the '?' that follows.
What do others think?
Seems like it turns a disagreement into a power struggle that python-dev is unlikely to win. If people here were interested in the irc, the irc culture would never have become as disconnected from the core group as it has, and even the most impassioned call isn't going to build an active community overnight. Furthermore, if #python has 200 people in it and #python3 is a ghost town, they can just tell anybody asking a python3 question to go to #python3 and snicker, reinforcing the widely held belief that python3 itself is a failure. It also runs the risk of hardening their existing position, and in any event begins the process of fracturing the community at a point where 3.x is probably not going to come out on top. Bottom line, what I'd really like to do is kick them all off of #python, but practically I see very little that can be done to rectify the situation at this point. Geremy Condra
On Jun 19, 2010, at 5:39 PM, geremy condra wrote:
Bottom line, what I'd really like to do is kick them all off of #python, but practically I see very little that can be done to rectify the situation at this point.
Here's something you can do: port libraries to python 3 and make the ecosystem viable. It's as simple as that. Nobody on #python has an ideological axe to grind, they just want to tell users to use tools which actually solve their problems. (Well, unless you think that "helping users" is ideological axe-grinding, in which case I think you may want to re-examine your own premises.) If Python 3 had all the features and libraries as Python 2, and ran in all the same places (for example, as Stephen Thorne reminded me when I asked him about this, the oldest supported version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux...) then it would be an equally viable answer on IRC. It's going to take a lot of work to get it to that point. Even if you write code, of course, it's too much work for one person to fill the whole gap. Have some patience. The PSF is funding these efforts, and more library authors are porting all the time. Eventually, resistance in forums like Freenode's #python will disappear. But you can't make it go away by wishing it away, you have to get rid of the cause.
On 6/19/2010 8:56 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
On Jun 19, 2010, at 5:39 PM, geremy condra wrote:
Bottom line, what I'd really like to do is kick them all off of #python, but practically I see very little that can be done to rectify the situation at this point.
Given the experiences you reported, I can understand that sentiment, but I explicitly disclaimed any intent to fight or power struggle.
Here's something you can do: port libraries to python 3 and make the ecosystem viable.
It's as simple as that. Nobody on #python has an ideological axe to grind,
Then why are they grinding an anti-Python3 axe? As I explained in my original post, I did not take anyone's word for it, but verified for myself that they are indeed doing so and why I thought so. There are people who are opposed to Python3 and have the fantasy that if it fails, the devs would continue to pile new features, sometimes duplicative features into 2.x and never remove anything. They do not care that this would make the language harder and harder for new learners. However, I will consider taking your claim at face value and, ignoring the insulting login message and site, try a Python3 question and see what response I get.
they just want to tell users to use tools which actually solve their problems.
But that is not what they are doing. Python3 solved many of *my* problems with Python2, and there they are, commanding me and potential readers of my book-in-progress not to use it. If they wanted to help people make an intelligent choice between Python2 and Python3, they would point people to a discussion of the pros and cons of each. There have been several posted on python-list. Anyone who posted either "Do not use Python3" or "Do not use Python2" as a sweeping answer to a generic enquiry about 2 versus 3 might rightfully be blasted as a troll.
If Python 3 had all the features and libraries as Python 2,
Python3 has several features that Python2 does not. To me, nearly all the deletions and changes make the language better, much better, for *my* purposes. However, I am glad that the PSF exists to make all versions of Python available indefinitely for anyone who has need of them. I would not dream of saying "Python2: do not use it" to anyone except in response to a question about a specific problem solved in Python3 and not in Python2. Terry Jan Reedy
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger@gmail.com> wrote:
This is so profoundly wrong on so many levels it is hard to know how to respond.
C'mon, Raymond, that's not any more helpful. Geremy wasn't trying to argue for that course of action; he was expression his frustration with the culture that's developed in #python. There's nothing wrong with frustration, and there's nothing wrong with expressing those -- or any -- feelings. Indeed, I'm happy that folks are blowing off a bit of steam here instead of doing something silly in public. Let's all try to simmer down here a little bit and cut each other some slack: this is a frustration situation, and we're not going to help it by heaping more fuel on the fire. Jacob
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <jacob@jacobian.org> wrote:
Let's all try to simmer down here a little bit and cut each other some slack: this is a frustration situation, and we're not going to help it by heaping more fuel on the fire.
The other thing to keep in mind is that there was a time when what the #python folks are still saying *wasn't wrong*. Yes, their advice is too negative for the situation as it stands now. But go back 12 or 18 months and their description would have been far more apt. It sounds like they're happy to update the relevant pages to provide a more balanced perspective now, and that's the important point. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 19, 2010, at 5:39 PM, geremy condra wrote:
Bottom line, what I'd really like to do is kick them all off of #python,
This is so profoundly wrong on so many levels it is hard to know how to respond.
Alright, so, yeah- I said it in the heat of the moment and shouldn't have. I apologize. I just hate having to explain to folks that don't know any better that #python doesn't represent the opinions of the people who actually develop python, and I'm going to STFU before I get sucked into this again. Geremy Condra
Hello, I'm one of the active people in #python that some people dislike for behavior with respect to Python 3. First of all I'd like to defuse the situation, much like Jacob. Seriously. It's been a bunch of posts so far and most of them have been pretty angry. Let's take a deep breath and try to fix the situation that's getting people frustrated like grownups :-) (FWIW: I find being called worse than half-intelligent pretty offensive. Let's stop doing that?) The idea being expressed in the IRC topic is _way_ bigger than the room an IRC topic gives you. Yes, it's an imperfect medium, yes, it's probably partially based on the use case: it's just that experience leads us to believe that the vast majority of use cases ends up being more in 2.x turf then 3.x turf, at the very least in the past. I'm sorry if you had the impression people wanted to nail you at the stake for using Python 3. If that's how you felt, it isn't true. I basically agree with Glyph. I don't think we've recently (I'm not omnipresent) told anyone who had any good reasons to to stop using Python 3. If someone's doing work that actually needs Python 3 (most recent example a GSOC student porting Sphinx), we try our best to help, and AFAICT we've mostly been successful. (Please correct me if you think this is erroneous.). We don't get too many people that actually want or need that, but I'm guessing that's mostly because people porting libraries to py3k usually already know what they're doing so they don't need the first-line-of-defense thing for Python questions that #python tries to be. Maybe you disagree on what good reasons are. #python is a bunch of volunteers giving help, free of charge, which is usually of a pretty high standard because they're professional Python developers and have been for a long time. Maybe that biases some of us against Py3k? Fact remains that there's a bunch of active people on IRC who pour a lot of time and effort into #python and make a lot of newbies really happy, and I think the picture you're painting based on a single issue that clearly not everyone agrees on is a bit disrespectful and somewhat unfair. Also, I'm pretty sure nobody has ever said that Python 3.x was a "failure", or anything like it. #python has claims that Python 3.x, as a platform for building production apps, is a work in progress because of third party library support, and the language itself is pretty much done and okay -- a cleaner version of 2.x. People ask why it's too early to use Py3k, and that's _always_ the answer they get: at least the first half, and usually the second half too. In the mean while, we encourage people to write code that will be easy to port and behave well in 3.x: new-style classes, don't use eager versions when the Py3k default is lazy and you don't actually need the eager thing, use as many third party libraries as possible (the idea being that this would minimize effort needed to make the switch on the grand scale of things), use absolute imports always (and only explicit relative, but it's discouraged), always have a full unit test suite. This is advice that generally makes a lot of sense, and it's the recommended thing in PEP 3000 for porting to 3.x as well. We're still telling people to use Python 2.x by default because of a few major things: 1. going out on a limb here: well over 90% of those people are completely new to Python and out of those most of them completely new to programming too, 2. the nicest libraries for doing a lot of stuff aren't ported yet, or are in the process of being ported but not yet recommended for actual use by their authors, (this seems to be a point of contention?) 3. we know how to help people better with it Which are all basically different incarnations of the same issue. People are working on libraries everywhere and I really don't want to pretend those people haven't gotten any work done, but AFAICT a lot of these for existing mature projects that you'd want people to use in order to be happy productive Python users don't really exist yet or are at best experimental. At the very least I think most people can agree that 2.x is still the default release for existing, mature software projects and most new ones too. I can only speak for my own area of intrest: Python is way too big for anyone to have used every piece of software for it ever. I, personally, don't use 3.x because I develop for PyS60 devices, PythonCE devices (2.5 only), and Twisted servers (2.6), and none of those work on 3.x yet. The other thing we build is websites, and AFAIK the web situation, for now, is still "use python2.x", too? (for any non-trivial website, of course). We use AMQP, and the best thing we've found for it is 2.x only (maybe Carrot and Pika do 3.x now, but I can't find any evidence of it). Nobody here (here = place of business) hates Python 3. We just can't use it. I'm very sorry if you've been offended. Like Glyph said: we're not grinding ideological axes. We're just recommending what we honestly believe is the right tool for the job. We're just humans, we're not perfect. We make mistakes. If you feel we've made them, please just tell us and don't start a war. If you tried and failed, please feel free to tell me how (doesn't have to be in public) and why it failed, and maybe I (or someone else!) can try to fix it: that's *not* how stuff is supposed to happen. Maybe someone was being a troll, I haven't checked but I trust the people I run #python with enough to say that it probably wasn't a regular. That's IRC for you: the problem is that if you let everyone speak once in a while trolls open their mouths. Perhaps something someone said was just taken too seriously. I don't know the situation you're referring to, I just know #python. Again, just because someone asked and nobody removed that line ('It's too early...') doesn't mean we're evil pricks that want people to use Python2.x because of some hidden agenda. It just means that person disagrees with the idea that it's a good time to start doing it. IRC can be a harsh place, not because the people are jerks but because the medium just lends itself to it. People are generally a not nicer than they appear. Like Nick said: not too long ago this was perfectly sound advice. I'm convinced it still is; maybe I've (and a lot of people active on #python) been out of touch with recent evolutions and it's no longer true. I don't know. I'm just a bit sad that it had to come angry ventings (no grudges, I realise most of it is probably just frustration). I like to think I'm not wrong when I think that if people just ask "Hey, guys, this Python 3.x rule, don't you think it's about time we reviewed that? It's been up for a long while." people would get banned or anything. Maybe people disagree and think it should still be up there: but at least we could have a productive discussion hopefully resulting in something that makes everyone happy or at the very least less frustrated. I just asked a two regulars and despite the fact that we're about as widespread as we possibly could timezone wise (SE Asia; Western Europe; WA, USA) nobody remembers that happening. Also, on tiwsted Twisted: yes, #python is very Twisted-minded, we have a bunch of people that like it, develop it, have built cool software with it and we think it could help other people too. It's not ideological axe grinding: a lot of the regulars just genuinely like Twisted. I'm sorry if you felt that not liking Twisted was going to get you smacked across the face, but that's not true either: Ronny Pfannschmidt is a regular, and he really doesn't like Twisted. We just think that for a lot of questions people come in with, Twisted is a great solution. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to have contrary opinions or that all dissent is crushed with an iron fist: it just means that the people who actually bother to help others day in day out know Twisted, like Twisted, and think Twisted is a great tool for a lot of problems. If you don't like Twisted, feel free to use something else: just don't complain when nobody can help you because the people offering help are all Twisted users that don't understand your software and don't have time or incentive to. It's a purely pragmatic thing. There's no hidden agenda. I've put bits of this up for review to #python regulars, so when I say 'we' it usually does mean 'we, #python regulars'. Most of it resonates. Maybe we're just in the distortion field? thanks for listening, Laurens
On 20 Jun 2010, at 11:35, Laurens Van Houtven <lvh@laurensvh.be> wrote:
Hello,
I'm one of the active people in #python that some people dislike for behavior with respect to Python 3.
First of all I'd like to defuse the situation, much like Jacob. Seriously. It's been a bunch of posts so far and most of them have been pretty angry. Let's take a deep breath and try to fix the situation that's getting people frustrated like grownups :-) (FWIW: I find being called worse than half-intelligent pretty offensive. Let's stop doing that?)
The idea being expressed in the IRC topic is _way_ bigger than the room an IRC topic gives you.
Hey Laurens - I don't have an issue with with anything you've said, but given the topic is far more nuanced than an IRC topic can express maybe that just isn't the right place for it. Michael
Yes, it's an imperfect medium, yes, it's probably partially based on the use case: it's just that experience leads us to believe that the vast majority of use cases ends up being more in 2.x turf then 3.x turf, at the very least in the past.
I'm sorry if you had the impression people wanted to nail you at the stake for using Python 3. If that's how you felt, it isn't true. I basically agree with Glyph. I don't think we've recently (I'm not omnipresent) told anyone who had any good reasons to to stop using Python 3. If someone's doing work that actually needs Python 3 (most recent example a GSOC student porting Sphinx), we try our best to help, and AFAICT we've mostly been successful. (Please correct me if you think this is erroneous.). We don't get too many people that actually want or need that, but I'm guessing that's mostly because people porting libraries to py3k usually already know what they're doing so they don't need the first-line-of-defense thing for Python questions that #python tries to be.
Maybe you disagree on what good reasons are. #python is a bunch of volunteers giving help, free of charge, which is usually of a pretty high standard because they're professional Python developers and have been for a long time. Maybe that biases some of us against Py3k? Fact remains that there's a bunch of active people on IRC who pour a lot of time and effort into #python and make a lot of newbies really happy, and I think the picture you're painting based on a single issue that clearly not everyone agrees on is a bit disrespectful and somewhat unfair.
Also, I'm pretty sure nobody has ever said that Python 3.x was a "failure", or anything like it. #python has claims that Python 3.x, as a platform for building production apps, is a work in progress because of third party library support, and the language itself is pretty much done and okay -- a cleaner version of 2.x. People ask why it's too early to use Py3k, and that's _always_ the answer they get: at least the first half, and usually the second half too.
In the mean while, we encourage people to write code that will be easy to port and behave well in 3.x: new-style classes, don't use eager versions when the Py3k default is lazy and you don't actually need the eager thing, use as many third party libraries as possible (the idea being that this would minimize effort needed to make the switch on the grand scale of things), use absolute imports always (and only explicit relative, but it's discouraged), always have a full unit test suite. This is advice that generally makes a lot of sense, and it's the recommended thing in PEP 3000 for porting to 3.x as well.
We're still telling people to use Python 2.x by default because of a few major things:
1. going out on a limb here: well over 90% of those people are completely new to Python and out of those most of them completely new to programming too, 2. the nicest libraries for doing a lot of stuff aren't ported yet, or are in the process of being ported but not yet recommended for actual use by their authors, (this seems to be a point of contention?) 3. we know how to help people better with it
Which are all basically different incarnations of the same issue. People are working on libraries everywhere and I really don't want to pretend those people haven't gotten any work done, but AFAICT a lot of these for existing mature projects that you'd want people to use in order to be happy productive Python users don't really exist yet or are at best experimental. At the very least I think most people can agree that 2.x is still the default release for existing, mature software projects and most new ones too.
I can only speak for my own area of intrest: Python is way too big for anyone to have used every piece of software for it ever. I, personally, don't use 3.x because I develop for PyS60 devices, PythonCE devices (2.5 only), and Twisted servers (2.6), and none of those work on 3.x yet. The other thing we build is websites, and AFAIK the web situation, for now, is still "use python2.x", too? (for any non-trivial website, of course). We use AMQP, and the best thing we've found for it is 2.x only (maybe Carrot and Pika do 3.x now, but I can't find any evidence of it). Nobody here (here = place of business) hates Python 3. We just can't use it.
I'm very sorry if you've been offended. Like Glyph said: we're not grinding ideological axes. We're just recommending what we honestly believe is the right tool for the job. We're just humans, we're not perfect. We make mistakes. If you feel we've made them, please just tell us and don't start a war. If you tried and failed, please feel free to tell me how (doesn't have to be in public) and why it failed, and maybe I (or someone else!) can try to fix it: that's *not* how stuff is supposed to happen. Maybe someone was being a troll, I haven't checked but I trust the people I run #python with enough to say that it probably wasn't a regular. That's IRC for you: the problem is that if you let everyone speak once in a while trolls open their mouths. Perhaps something someone said was just taken too seriously. I don't know the situation you're referring to, I just know #python.
Again, just because someone asked and nobody removed that line ('It's too early...') doesn't mean we're evil pricks that want people to use Python2.x because of some hidden agenda. It just means that person disagrees with the idea that it's a good time to start doing it. IRC can be a harsh place, not because the people are jerks but because the medium just lends itself to it. People are generally a not nicer than they appear.
Like Nick said: not too long ago this was perfectly sound advice. I'm convinced it still is; maybe I've (and a lot of people active on #python) been out of touch with recent evolutions and it's no longer true. I don't know. I'm just a bit sad that it had to come angry ventings (no grudges, I realise most of it is probably just frustration). I like to think I'm not wrong when I think that if people just ask "Hey, guys, this Python 3.x rule, don't you think it's about time we reviewed that? It's been up for a long while." people would get banned or anything. Maybe people disagree and think it should still be up there: but at least we could have a productive discussion hopefully resulting in something that makes everyone happy or at the very least less frustrated. I just asked a two regulars and despite the fact that we're about as widespread as we possibly could timezone wise (SE Asia; Western Europe; WA, USA) nobody remembers that happening.
Also, on tiwsted Twisted: yes, #python is very Twisted-minded, we have a bunch of people that like it, develop it, have built cool software with it and we think it could help other people too. It's not ideological axe grinding: a lot of the regulars just genuinely like Twisted. I'm sorry if you felt that not liking Twisted was going to get you smacked across the face, but that's not true either: Ronny Pfannschmidt is a regular, and he really doesn't like Twisted. We just think that for a lot of questions people come in with, Twisted is a great solution. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to have contrary opinions or that all dissent is crushed with an iron fist: it just means that the people who actually bother to help others day in day out know Twisted, like Twisted, and think Twisted is a great tool for a lot of problems. If you don't like Twisted, feel free to use something else: just don't complain when nobody can help you because the people offering help are all Twisted users that don't understand your software and don't have time or incentive to. It's a purely pragmatic thing. There's no hidden agenda.
I've put bits of this up for review to #python regulars, so when I say 'we' it usually does mean 'we, #python regulars'. Most of it resonates. Maybe we're just in the distortion field?
thanks for listening, Laurens _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.u...
Michael, Fair point! It's mostly put in the topic so people can ask about it and we can give them more detailed answers, because, as other people have mentioned, the exact answer depends largely on what *precisely* someone is doing. I'm not sure what sort of an effect it would have if we took it out. Maybe something we could try? I'm not sure it'd have much of a practical effect since most of the regulars expertise isn't going to shift instantly, so getting actual help is probably going to be a bit rough on 3.x users. At the very least I'm going to take this suggestion to #python's regulars and see what they have to say about it :-) (One of the problems people I've talked to in private that were "pretty miffed" about is the dissonance between #python and python-dev, and that there's some problem with people assuming things said on #python as being very authoritative answers (ha ha). I think this is really bad for Python as a whole and I've love to hear ideas on how you guys think it could be fixed.) thanks Laurens
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Laurens Van Houtven <lvh@laurensvh.be> wrote:
I'm not sure what sort of an effect it would have if we took it out. Maybe something we could try? I'm not sure it'd have much of a practical effect since most of the regulars expertise isn't going to shift instantly, so getting actual help is probably going to be a bit rough on 3.x users.
Given the number of other links that are already in the status message, it would be really nice if the comment could be updated to something like: "Is Python3 ready for me? http://python-commandments.org/python3.html" i.e. make it clear that this is a question where the answer will vary based on your use case, and provide a clear direction on where to get more information. That page could then be updated to give a more balance view of the pros of Python 3 (e.g. cleaner core language design, future direction of the language, much better Unicode support) and the pros of Python 2 (e.g. wider installed base, better current third party library support, greater existing developer base, larger support ecosystem, greater #python expertise)
(One of the problems people I've talked to in private that were "pretty miffed" about is the dissonance between #python and python-dev, and that there's some problem with people assuming things said on #python as being very authoritative answers (ha ha). I think this is really bad for Python as a whole and I've love to hear ideas on how you guys think it could be fixed.)
There are always going to be differences in how different communities see the world and even the "Python community" is far too large to have a consistent point of view on almost any topic. So we'll likely have to muddle through with various ideas slowly percolating through to different parts of the community. That said, keeping in touch with the #python crew is certainly something we haven't paid much attention to in the past, but is probably just as important as staying in touch with major library developers and the developers of other implementations. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Laurens Van Houtven <lvh@laurensvh.be> wrote: Given the number of other links that are already in the status message, it would be really nice if the comment could be updated to something like:
"Is Python3 ready for me? http://python-commandments.org/python3.html"
Sounds like a great idea, I'll run it past the other folks.
i.e. make it clear that this is a question where the answer will vary based on your use case, and provide a clear direction on where to get more information.
I think the reason #python regulars never saw this as a problem is because people who actually ask do get this answer. At least they do if Aaron, Allen, Brendon, Clovis, Stephen, Devin, me... (list of names way too numerous to be exhaustive) are awake. Maybe the strong language does scare people off from that critical asking-for-more-information step, so yes, reviewing that would be a good idea.
There are always going to be differences in how different communities see the world and even the "Python community" is far too large to have a consistent point of view on almost any topic. So we'll likely have to muddle through with various ideas slowly percolating through to different parts of the community. That said, keeping in touch with the #python crew is certainly something we haven't paid much attention to in the past, but is probably just as important as staying in touch with major library developers and the developers of other implementations.
My thoughts exactly on both counts. Communication good, embrace heterogeneity :)
Cheers, Nick.
Thanks for your input, Laurens
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:33:35 +0200 Laurens Van Houtven <lvh@laurensvh.be> wrote:
(One of the problems people I've talked to in private that were "pretty miffed" about is the dissonance between #python and python-dev, and that there's some problem with people assuming things said on #python as being very authoritative answers (ha ha). I think this is really bad for Python as a whole and I've love to hear ideas on how you guys think it could be fixed.)
Perhaps lower the tone a bit on http://pound-python.org/ ? “foremost support system for developing quality Python applications” ... “crack team of Python experts” ... “Your time won't be wasted by architecture astronauts or trivial repetitions of the docs”. (I understand these are slightly tongue-in-cheek but, if this page is intented mainly for beginners, I think being descriptive is more valuable) Also, mention other support options there - primarily comp.lang.python, of course, and the official documentation pages. Regards Antoine.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:33:35 +0200 Laurens Van Houtven <lvh@laurensvh.be> wrote: Perhaps lower the tone a bit on http://pound-python.org/ ? “foremost support system for developing quality Python applications” ... “crack team of Python experts” ... “Your time won't be wasted by architecture astronauts or trivial repetitions of the docs”.
Noted, we'll say the same thing but differently.
(I understand these are slightly tongue-in-cheek but, if this page is intented mainly for beginners, I think being descriptive is more valuable)
Yes, it is tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps a bit too much so :-) I didn't write it, it just never struck me as a problem at the time. I think the problem is that that page was created to fix a very specific problem (explaining why #python isn't a search engine), and it probably got written more out of something snapping than an attempt to be informative.
Also, mention other support options there - primarily comp.lang.python, of course, and the official documentation pages.
Will do.
Regards
Antoine.
Thanks for your input, Laurens
Laurens Van Houtven writes:
Also, I'm pretty sure nobody has ever said that Python 3.x was a "failure", or anything like it. #python has claims that Python 3.x, as a platform for building production apps, is a work in progress
How about "Python 3 is a work in progress" for the topic? That seems to me to strike exactly the right balance, and encourage the interested to ask the right kind of question.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
Laurens Van Houtven writes:
> Also, I'm pretty sure nobody has ever said that Python 3.x was a > "failure", or anything like it. #python has claims that Python 3.x, as > a platform for building production apps, is a work in progress
How about "Python 3 is a work in progress" for the topic? That seems to me to strike exactly the right balance, and encourage the interested to ask the right kind of question.
I think even that's a bit too loaded, as a sign of goodwill I think we're going to go with something completely neutral like "2.x vs 3.x". But I'm not going to argue that ad nauseam because it's really just bikeshedding. thanks for your input Laurens
Am 20.06.2010 19:48, schrieb Stephen J. Turnbull:
Laurens Van Houtven writes:
Also, I'm pretty sure nobody has ever said that Python 3.x was a "failure", or anything like it. #python has claims that Python 3.x, as a platform for building production apps, is a work in progress
How about "Python 3 is a work in progress" for the topic?
I wouldn't say that, either - not more than Python 2 was a work in progress over the last 10 years. Regards, Martin
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 9:10 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin@v.loewis.de> wrote:
Am 20.06.2010 19:48, schrieb Stephen J. Turnbull:
How about "Python 3 is a work in progress" for the topic?
I wouldn't say that, either - not more than Python 2 was a work in progress over the last 10 years.
Regards, Martin
Yeah, this is why I really like a completely neutral topic. thanks, Laurens
On 6/20/2010 6:35 AM, Laurens Van Houtven wrote:
I'm one of the active people in #python that some people dislike for behavior with respect to Python 3.
As I wrote, I disliked the observable, written behavior, now changed. You are obviously a fine person. We both love Python and have both contributed time for years to helping others with Python. The premise for this branch thread was: IF #python is really #python2 and somewhat anti-Python3, THEN (and only then), maybe we need a #python3. I am delighted that you have already refuted the premise with a new, much improved, splash topic. I now feel free to ask Python3 questions on the existing channel -- things like "Is issue #### applicable to Python3?" -- as I work on reviewing tracker issues. In that respect, this thread is finished for me. But I hope it is just the start of better cooperation and communication. Just a few notes in addition to other responses.
First of all I'd like to defuse the situation.
Excellently done.
Also, I'm pretty sure nobody has ever said that Python 3.x was a "failure", or anything like it.
I have no idea what has been said by you or anyone on #python, but people *have* posted on both python-list and here on py-dev things like "Python3 is not ready for use. It is a failure. Do not use it." (any of that sound familiar? ;-) and even "Python3 should be scrapped!". I am relieve that you have disassociated yourself and #python from such sentiments. --- On newbies and version choice: I agree with Nick Efford that people using Python to learn about programming may be better off with Python3. I am using a subset of Python3 in a book on algorithms for the reasons he gave and others. Not even mentioned so far in this thread is the availability of unicode identifiers for people with non-Latin alphabets. Of course, Asian schoolkids are unlikely to request help on #python. And the point about suggesting Python2 because that is what you all are good at helping with, is well taken. I do think people learning Python2 now should have a Python3-aware guide to doing so. This
In the mean while, we encourage people to write code that will be easy to port and behave well in 3.x: new-style classes, don't use eager versions when the Py3k default is lazy and you don't actually need the eager thing, use as many third party libraries as possible (the idea being that this would minimize effort needed to make the switch on the grand scale of things), use absolute imports always (and only explicit relative, but it's discouraged), always have a full unit test suite.
is a good start. I think something like that would be good for the #python web page, or added to python.org somewhere. Terry Jan Reedy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In reply to the recent post by Laurens and the vow I made to change the text which is presented on the python-commandments domain I have asked Laurens to write a new text on the subject. This message is a heads up to let all of you know that this new article is now available on the following URL: http://python-commandments.org/python3.html This article will probably be the featured article on #python's /topic regarding Python 2 or 3. I also read some remarks about possibly having an official article up on the Python website and in case that happens that will take the place of this article. Regards, Simon de Vlieger -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMHoQxAAoJEBBSHP7i+JXfGdUP/3NsUuMAJ2DONJZE4AbQIx5G n7UE/SD0teZpyrYYIzV/PI1m40xz5XBe+zJyNfGN7m+MNoW7lGIxHgBoTB5CU6eE 10LeNy2qR9eqRQ/NZ+t8GJul4zuGIocPglDqCX/M6KtFCmtDsgSgbLaMFEgI4lRs vZr9I9hUX9E1r+9T50uxo/YHQm+QW/HIYVks15nOoeUalkhxlQF67vvzH8/lds/F sl5DxXe/zo287GeOIjpDNI/+0KJtUTLop4S/cpVxxA5eNX9lgGztq1wmKCMQmKcB FS/WfQomyEhZhTk4CtIMQ7HM51bGUHwDeoO8qIOrayTM8ucoruO0QyzmZM0yxoDY G+GVYabTKKp9ICDaUvOMxYpRnuz/Xb10nb9HphutQ03cjR28bJLR8nuLUBmIzcJK ICXVIcV11hD01hzGWBJ7llQeoHl9ykaZu54PqpnZ/gdUrBVJ7VRItb5b4wP/PTwJ frtNvnVwBnuR9wfQmCV9Do1UVTAVUqjFRpoBujIgSaZCa1wyF5U+8eHVD26u8lDj +Hva28S/MggzIbc9x3/yv070204JaZVD1Q6fR5cSWdCMHgEDnwCmRjqlqLRW7zqS al4/JaxDiqa7RrB8+liFDijtqopy7K6a3vDK4BBHuyqWmJ9lGqVJzC0ynRE6DV7N 4+lJCEF9qLW++QgjHXR2 =qRiB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
That's not actually up just yet, I'd like people to review it, personally I think it's still a tad bit biased towards Py3k. Until then I'm keeping the Py3.x document by Nick Efford up there. Thanks for your continued participation and seemingly endless patience, Laurens
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Simon de Vlieger <simon@ikanobori.jp> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
In reply to the recent post by Laurens and the vow I made to change the text which is presented on the python-commandments domain I have asked Laurens to write a new text on the subject.
This message is a heads up to let all of you know that this new article is now available on the following URL: http://python-commandments.org/python3.html
That's a fairly decent write-up in my opinion. As Laurens pointed, it trends towards the "use Python 3 if you can, Python 2 if you need to" point of view, which I personally think is the right spin to be putting on this issue, but obviously opinions will vary on that front. About the only specific wording tweak I would suggest is that "little regard for backwards compatibility" should be phrased as "less regard for backwards compatibility". There were still quite a few ideas we rejected as gratuitously incompatible, even for Py3k (the eventual decision to retain old-style string formatting comes to mind). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On 6/20/2010 5:53 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Simon de Vlieger<simon@ikanobori.jp> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
In reply to the recent post by Laurens and the vow I made to change the text which is presented on the python-commandments domain I have asked Laurens to write a new text on the subject.
That's a fairly decent write-up in my opinion. As Laurens pointed, it trends towards the "use Python 3 if you can, Python 2 if you need to" point of view, which I personally think is the right spin to be putting on this issue, but obviously opinions will vary on that front.
About the only specific wording tweak I would suggest is that "little regard for backwards compatibility" should be phrased as "less regard for backwards compatibility". There were still quite a few ideas we rejected as gratuitously incompatible, even for Py3k (the eventual decision to retain old-style string formatting comes to mind).
I have much the same opinion, and the ame suggestion, as Nick. People do not usually see the proposals that were rejected and the changes not made in 3.0. For those who *do* wish, there are about 25 items listed at http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3099/ Things that will Not Change in Python 3000 Nick listed one thing not on the list. Eliminating the duplicate method names in the unittest module is another. (In isolation, most everyone was in favor. Guido's reason for leaving the duplication: porting 2 to 3 is much easier with a good (and stable) test suite. Therefore, cleaning up unittest and possibly breaking test suites, even with a 2to3 conversion, would not be a good idea.) Terry Jan Reedy
Okay cool, we fixed it: http://python-commandments.org/python3.html People are otherwise happy with the text? Thanks for your continued input, Laurens
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Laurens Van Houtven <lvh@laurensvh.be> wrote:
Okay cool, we fixed it: http://python-commandments.org/python3.html
People are otherwise happy with the text?
Yep, looks pretty good to me. I hope you don't mind, but I actually borrowed your text to seed a corresponding page on the Python wiki: http://wiki.python.org/moin/Python2orPython3 It turns out the beginner's guide on the wiki doesn't even acknowledge the possibility of downloading Python 3.1 rather than 2.6 to start experimenting with Python. The Wiki is probably a good place for this kind of material, anyway - it makes it much easier for people to update as they identify major third party libraries that do and don't have Py3k compatible versions (and, some day, Python2 compatible versions). Cheers, Nick. P.S. (We're going to have a tough decision to make somewhere along the line where docs.python.org is concerned, too - when do we flick the switch and make a 3.x version of the docs the default? We probably won't need to seriously consider that question until the 3.3. time frame though). -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
I would suggest that if packages that do not have Python 3 support yet are listed, then their alternatives should also. PyQt has had Py3 support for some time. PostgreSQL and SQLite do (as does SQLAlchemy) CherryPy has had Py3 support for the last release cycle libxml2 does not, but lxml does. Also, under where it mentions that most OS's do not include Python 3, it should be noted which have good support for it. Gentoo (for example) has excellent support for Python 3, automatically installing Python packages which have Py3 support for both Py2 and Py3, and the python-based Portage package system runs cleanly on Py2.6, Py3.1 and Py3.2. Give credit where credit is due. :-) On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Laurens Van Houtven <lvh@laurensvh.be> wrote:
Okay cool, we fixed it: http://python-commandments.org/python3.html
People are otherwise happy with the text?
Yep, looks pretty good to me.
I hope you don't mind, but I actually borrowed your text to seed a corresponding page on the Python wiki: http://wiki.python.org/moin/Python2orPython3
It turns out the beginner's guide on the wiki doesn't even acknowledge the possibility of downloading Python 3.1 rather than 2.6 to start experimenting with Python.
The Wiki is probably a good place for this kind of material, anyway - it makes it much easier for people to update as they identify major third party libraries that do and don't have Py3k compatible versions (and, some day, Python2 compatible versions).
Cheers, Nick.
P.S. (We're going to have a tough decision to make somewhere along the line where docs.python.org is concerned, too - when do we flick the switch and make a 3.x version of the docs the default? We probably won't need to seriously consider that question until the 3.3. time frame though).
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/arcriley%40gmail.com
On Jun 21, 2010, at 09:37 AM, Arc Riley wrote:
Also, under where it mentions that most OS's do not include Python 3, it should be noted which have good support for it. Gentoo (for example) has excellent support for Python 3, automatically installing Python packages which have Py3 support for both Py2 and Py3, and the python-based Portage package system runs cleanly on Py2.6, Py3.1 and Py3.2.
We're trying to get there for Ubuntu (driven also by Debian). We have Python 3.1.2 in main for Lucid, though we will probably not get 3.2 into Maverick (the October 2010 release). We're currently concentrating on Python 2.7 as a supported version because it'll be released by then, while 3.2 will still be in beta. If you want to help, or have complaints, kudos, suggestions, etc. for Python support on Ubuntu, you can contact me off-list. -Barry
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 09:57:30AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jun 21, 2010, at 09:37 AM, Arc Riley wrote:
Also, under where it mentions that most OS's do not include Python 3, it should be noted which have good support for it. Gentoo (for example) has excellent support for Python 3, automatically installing Python packages which have Py3 support for both Py2 and Py3, and the python-based Portage package system runs cleanly on Py2.6, Py3.1 and Py3.2.
We're trying to get there for Ubuntu (driven also by Debian). We have Python 3.1.2 in main for Lucid, though we will probably not get 3.2 into Maverick (the October 2010 release). We're currently concentrating on Python 2.7 as a supported version because it'll be released by then, while 3.2 will still be in beta.
If you want to help, or have complaints, kudos, suggestions, etc. for Python support on Ubuntu, you can contact me off-list.
<nod> Fedora 14 is about the same. A nice to have thing that goes along with these would be a table that has packages ported to python3 and which distributions have the python3 version of the package. Once most of the important third party packages are ported to python3 and in the distributions, this table will likely become out-dated and probably should be reaped but right now it's a very useful thing to see. -Toshio
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Arc Riley <arcriley@gmail.com> wrote:
I would suggest that if packages that do not have Python 3 support yet are listed, then their alternatives should also.
PyQt has had Py3 support for some time. PostgreSQL and SQLite do (as does SQLAlchemy) CherryPy has had Py3 support for the last release cycle libxml2 does not, but lxml does.
Also, under where it mentions that most OS's do not include Python 3, it should be noted which have good support for it. Gentoo (for example) has excellent support for Python 3, automatically installing Python packages which have Py3 support for both Py2 and Py3, and the python-based Portage package system runs cleanly on Py2.6, Py3.1 and Py3.2.
Give credit where credit is due. :-)
A decent listing of major packages that already support Python 3 would be very handy for the new Python2orPython3 page I created on the wiki, and easier to keep up-to-date. (the old Early2to3Migrations page didn't look particularly up to date, but hopefully we can keep the new list in a happier state). It just ticked past midnight for me, so I'm off to bed, but for anyone with a wiki account, have at it: http://wiki.python.org/moin/Python2orPython3 (Updating the beginner's guide to recognise Python 3 as a valid option would also be helpful: http://wiki.python.org/moin/BeginnersGuide) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Monday, June 21, 2010, Nick Coghlan wrote:
A decent listing of major packages that already support Python 3 would be very handy for the new Python2orPython3 page I created on the wiki, and easier to keep up-to-date. (the old Early2to3Migrations page didn't look particularly up to date, but hopefully we can keep the new list in a happier state).
I really just want to be able to go to PyPI, Click on "Browse packages" and then select "Python 3" (it can currently be accomplished by clicking "Python" and then "3"). Of course, package developers need to be encouraged to add these Trove classifiers so that the listings are as complete as possible. Regards, Stephan -- Entrepreneur and Software Geek Google me. "Zope Stephan Richter"
Personally, I'd like to celebrate the upcoming Python 3.2 release (which will hopefully include 3to2) with moving all packages which do not have the 'Programming Language :: Python :: 3' classifier to a "Legacy" section of PyPI and offer only Python 3 packages otherwise. Of course put a banner at the top clearly explaining that Python 2 packages can be found in the Legacy section. Radical, I know, but at some point we really need to make this move. PyPI really needs a mechanism to cull out the moribund packages from being displayed next to the actively maintained ones. There's so many packages on there that only work on Python 2.2-2.4 (for example), or with a specific highly outdated version of another package, etc. On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Stephan Richter <stephan.richter@gmail.com
wrote:
On Monday, June 21, 2010, Nick Coghlan wrote:
A decent listing of major packages that already support Python 3 would be very handy for the new Python2orPython3 page I created on the wiki, and easier to keep up-to-date. (the old Early2to3Migrations page didn't look particularly up to date, but hopefully we can keep the new list in a happier state).
I really just want to be able to go to PyPI, Click on "Browse packages" and then select "Python 3" (it can currently be accomplished by clicking "Python" and then "3"). Of course, package developers need to be encouraged to add these Trove classifiers so that the listings are as complete as possible.
Regards, Stephan -- Entrepreneur and Software Geek Google me. "Zope Stephan Richter"
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com> wrote:
<nod> Fedora 14 is about the same. A nice to have thing that goes along with these would be a table that has packages ported to python3 and which distributions have the python3 version of the package.
Yeah, this is exactly why I'd prefer to not have to maintain a specific list. Big distros are making Python 3.x available, it's not the default interpreter yet anywhere (AFAIK?), but that's going to happen in the next few releases of said distributions. On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Arc Riley <arcriley@gmail.com> wrote:
Personally, I'd like to celebrate the upcoming Python 3.2 release (which will hopefully include 3to2) with moving all packages which do not have the 'Programming Language :: Python :: 3' classifier to a "Legacy" section of PyPI and offer only Python 3 packages otherwise. Of course put a banner at the top clearly explaining that Python 2 packages can be found in the Legacy section.
Radical, I know, but at some point we really need to make this move.
I agree we have to make it at some point but I feel this is way, way too early. thanks for your continued input, Laurens
Laurens Van Houtven wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com> wrote:
<nod> Fedora 14 is about the same. A nice to have thing that goes along with these would be a table that has packages ported to python3 and which distributions have the python3 version of the package.
Yeah, this is exactly why I'd prefer to not have to maintain a specific list. Big distros are making Python 3.x available, it's not the default interpreter yet anywhere (AFAIK?), but that's going to happen in the next few releases of said distributions.
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Arc Riley <arcriley@gmail.com> wrote:
Personally, I'd like to celebrate the upcoming Python 3.2 release (which will hopefully include 3to2) with moving all packages which do not have the 'Programming Language :: Python :: 3' classifier to a "Legacy" section of PyPI and offer only Python 3 packages otherwise. Of course put a banner at the top clearly explaining that Python 2 packages can be found in the Legacy section.
Radical, I know, but at some point we really need to make this move.
I agree we have to make it at some point but I feel this is way, way too early.
thanks for your continued input, Laurens
But it's never too early to plan for something you know to be inevitable. More planning might have helped earlier on. I don't think it's likely to hurt now. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 See Python Video! http://python.mirocommunity.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/ "All I want for my birthday is another birthday" - Ian Dury, 1942-2000
On 6/21/2010 11:31 AM, Arc Riley wrote:
Personally, I'd like to celebrate the upcoming Python 3.2 release (which will hopefully include 3to2) with moving all packages which do not have the 'Programming Language :: Python :: 3' classifier to a "Legacy" section of PyPI and offer only Python 3 packages otherwise. Of course put a banner at the top clearly explaining that Python 2 packages can be found in the Legacy section.
I do not think 2.x should be dissed any more than 3.x, which is to say, not at all. The impression I got from lurking on #python last night, in between disconnects, is that at least a couple of people feel that there is a move afoot to push people to Python3. Whether that had any connection to discussions here, I could not tell. Having pypi.python.org/py2 and pypi.python.org/py3 though might be a good idea. Inquiries from either url would automatically filter. The counterargument is that there may be people looking for packages available for *both*.
Radical, I know, but at some point we really need to make this move.
PyPI really needs a mechanism to cull out the moribund packages from being displayed next to the actively maintained ones.
The default ordering for search results is by rating. There's so many
packages on there that only work on Python 2.2-2.4 (for example), or with a specific highly outdated version of another package, etc.
And there are people running those versions. I think better classification and filtering is the answer, though hard to mandate. Terry Jan Reedy
On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Stephan Richter wrote:
I really just want to be able to go to PyPI, Click on "Browse packages" and then select "Python 3" (it can currently be accomplished by clicking "Python" and then "3"). Of course, package developers need to be encouraged to add these Trove classifiers so that the listings are as complete as possible.
Trove classifiers are not particularly user friendly. I wonder if we can help with a (partially) automated or guided tool to help? Maybe something on the web page for packages w/o classifications, kind of like a Linked-in progress meter... -Barry
On Monday, June 21, 2010, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Stephan Richter wrote:
I really just want to be able to go to PyPI, Click on "Browse packages" and then select "Python 3" (it can currently be accomplished by clicking "Python" and then "3"). Of course, package developers need to be encouraged to add these Trove classifiers so that the listings are as complete as possible.
Trove classifiers are not particularly user friendly. I wonder if we can help with a (partially) automated or guided tool to help? Maybe something on the web page for packages w/o classifications, kind of like a Linked-in progress meter...
Yeah that would be good. I thought the "Score" was something like that, but it is not transparent enough. It would be great, if PyPI would tell me how I can improve my package meta-data. (The Linked-in progress meter worked for me too. ;-) Regards, Stephan -- Entrepreneur and Software Geek Google me. "Zope Stephan Richter"
Am 21.06.2010 17:13, schrieb Stephan Richter:
On Monday, June 21, 2010, Nick Coghlan wrote:
A decent listing of major packages that already support Python 3 would be very handy for the new Python2orPython3 page I created on the wiki, and easier to keep up-to-date. (the old Early2to3Migrations page didn't look particularly up to date, but hopefully we can keep the new list in a happier state).
I really just want to be able to go to PyPI, Click on "Browse packages" and then select "Python 3" (it can currently be accomplished by clicking "Python" and then "3").
Or you can use the link "Python 3 packages" on PyPI's main menu. Regards, Martin
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Arc Riley <arcriley@gmail.com> wrote:
I would suggest that if packages that do not have Python 3 support yet are listed, then their alternatives should also.
Okay, this is being worked on.
PyQt has had Py3 support for some time.
Added, as well as PySide.
PostgreSQL and SQLite do (as does SQLAlchemy)
wrt Postgres: Is that psycopg2? Not sure what that's an alternative to, since the 2.x list doesn't have any ORMs or database APIs at the moment (unless Django counts).
CherryPy has had Py3 support for the last release cycle
Okay, going to add it but can't right now because lots of people are editing.
libxml2 does not, but lxml does.
That's okay, I don't think many people seriously use python-libxml2 anyway (using lxml instead) :-) Again, not sure what that would be an alternative for though?
Also, under where it mentions that most OS's do not include Python 3, it should be noted which have good support for it. Gentoo (for example) has excellent support for Python 3, automatically installing Python packages which have Py3 support for both Py2 and Py3, and the python-based Portage package system runs cleanly on Py2.6, Py3.1 and Py3.2.
As Barry has pointed out 3.x is in many distros now, so in order to not make people angry that their distro who also does the Right Thing isn't mentioned (what's Arch do? py3k is easily available from AUR, that's not really ArchLinux proper but every Arch user I've ever talked to considers AUR an integral part), I added this: """ Also, quite a few distributions have Python 3.x available already for end-users, even if it's not the default interpreter. """ I think that would make everyone happy, and the wiki article that much more maintainable. Thanks for your input, Laurens
On 6/21/2010 8:33 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
P.S. (We're going to have a tough decision to make somewhere along the line where docs.python.org is concerned, too - when do we flick the switch and make a 3.x version of the docs the default?
Easy. When 3.2 is released. When 2.7 is released, 3.2 becomes 'trunk'. Trunk released always take over docs.python.org. To do otherwise would be to say that 3.2 is not a real trunk release and not yet ready for real use -- a major slam. Actually, I thought this was already discussed and decided ;-). Terry Jan Reedy
Terry Reedy wrote:
On 6/21/2010 8:33 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
P.S. (We're going to have a tough decision to make somewhere along the line where docs.python.org is concerned, too - when do we flick the switch and make a 3.x version of the docs the default?
Easy. When 3.2 is released. When 2.7 is released, 3.2 becomes 'trunk'. Trunk released always take over docs.python.org. To do otherwise would be to say that 3.2 is not a real trunk release and not yet ready for real use -- a major slam.
Actually, I thought this was already discussed and decided ;-).
This also gives the 2.7 release it's day in the sun before relegation to maintenance status. The Python 3 documents, when they become the default, should contain an every-page link to the Python 2 documentation (though linkages may be a problem - they could probably be done at a gross level). regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 See Python Video! http://python.mirocommunity.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/ "All I want for my birthday is another birthday" - Ian Dury, 1942-2000
On 6/21/2010 3:59 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
On 6/21/2010 8:33 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
P.S. (We're going to have a tough decision to make somewhere along the line where docs.python.org is concerned, too - when do we flick the switch and make a 3.x version of the docs the default?
Easy. When 3.2 is released. When 2.7 is released, 3.2 becomes 'trunk'. Trunk released always take over docs.python.org. To do otherwise would be to say that 3.2 is not a real trunk release and not yet ready for real use -- a major slam.
Actually, I thought this was already discussed and decided ;-).
This also gives the 2.7 release it's day in the sun before relegation to maintenance status.
Every new version (except 3.0 and 3.1) has gone to maintenance status *and* becomes the featured release on docs.python.org the day it was released. 2.7 would just spend less time as the featured release on that page.
The Python 3 documents, when they become the default, should contain an every-page link to the Python 2 documentation (though linkages may be a problem - they could probably be done at a gross level).
docs.python.org contains links to docs to other releases, both past and future. There is no reason to treat 3.2 specially, or to junk up its pages. The 3.x docs have intentionally been cleaned of nearly all references to 2.x. The current 2.6 and 2.7 pages have no references to corresponding 3.1 pages. Terry Jan Reedy
Am 22.06.2010 01:01, schrieb Terry Reedy:
On 6/21/2010 3:59 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
On 6/21/2010 8:33 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
P.S. (We're going to have a tough decision to make somewhere along the line where docs.python.org is concerned, too - when do we flick the switch and make a 3.x version of the docs the default?
Easy. When 3.2 is released. When 2.7 is released, 3.2 becomes 'trunk'. Trunk released always take over docs.python.org. To do otherwise would be to say that 3.2 is not a real trunk release and not yet ready for real use -- a major slam.
Actually, I thought this was already discussed and decided ;-).
This also gives the 2.7 release it's day in the sun before relegation to maintenance status.
Every new version (except 3.0 and 3.1) has gone to maintenance status *and* becomes the featured release on docs.python.org the day it was released. 2.7 would just spend less time as the featured release on that page.
I'm not sure 3.2 should take over in December just yet. (There's also docs3.python.org that always lands at the latest 3.x documentation). However, there will be enough time to discuss this when 3.2 is actually about to be released. Georg -- Thus spake the Lord: Thou shalt indent with four spaces. No more, no less. Four shall be the number of spaces thou shalt indent, and the number of thy indenting shall be four. Eight shalt thou not indent, nor either indent thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Tabs are right out.
On 6/27/2010 5:44 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 22.06.2010 01:01, schrieb Terry Reedy:
On 6/21/2010 3:59 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
On 6/21/2010 8:33 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
P.S. (We're going to have a tough decision to make somewhere along the line where docs.python.org is concerned, too - when do we flick the switch and make a 3.x version of the docs the default?
Easy. When 3.2 is released. When 2.7 is released, 3.2 becomes 'trunk'. Trunk released always take over docs.python.org. To do otherwise would be to say that 3.2 is not a real trunk release and not yet ready for real use -- a major slam.
Actually, I thought this was already discussed and decided ;-).
This also gives the 2.7 release it's day in the sun before relegation to maintenance status.
Every new version (except 3.0 and 3.1) has gone to maintenance status *and* becomes the featured release on docs.python.org the day it was released. 2.7 would just spend less time as the featured release on that page.
I'm not sure 3.2 should take over in December just yet. (There's also docs3.python.org that always lands at the latest 3.x documentation).
However, there will be enough time to discuss this when 3.2 is actually about to be released.
Sure. Since I expect that the argument for treating 3.2 as a regular production-use-ready release will be stronger then than now, I agree on differing discussion. -- Terry Jan Reedy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20 jun 2010, at 23:53, Nick Coghlan wrote:
About the only specific wording tweak I would suggest is that "little regard for backwards compatibility" should be phrased as "less regard for backwards compatibility". There were still quite a few ideas we rejected as gratuitously incompatible, even for Py3k (the eventual decision to retain old-style string formatting comes to mind).
I have changed this text to include the wording tweak. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMHp7DAAoJEBBSHP7i+JXfSkMQANw1SNroVYNkDUEJCIKtdKEJ HyGBMZpG0liUfqVf8YAjNRYEscpWtsS2Inh8PBlTUwo5OTZPmbggJVZGO17E7Z8k ld9TASppKraNZL62nBno5us2rnc2aUJL6GCaKPL1SQkk8GG1yLAV57j8d4R50QZS 4S7ogFPgVveM4VYEZXaZrlHpzlHjdh8xjq7f4Pl8IKJQZm6uOorK+sL+jiw0DauA UEJ53rx0agy8GRwtnOY7XvqP0lgXLfZ/axTW9e6FkKXBcHYv3qdEAvdC3wyF9OKJ nSNo7vIj4z24V7x9WQdIcc2wifHGPqSBSfnUc4Y3TPAaPLAjlX3HX3C4J+iFbI4/ c6VIm/OSPhcuclV0IgTJGvDOoyVlxTXFnOhOobXFI3KcAtCMQw5Y9gzx+4f5nahJ YMlu54lFhqMsBzsTMlYcispEbbAuban4aZH7JAZ645F/AMzGqiTUZyHgD+A+i+9P Ctu7DStT4tI/ZHcsqjnSkmpLxFhr3kNZct71aS22xOpm4MBAXmPEFYa2a/LpozHi pDhuKJbwNc/+lbgiK267IP+V2pfKQ73qMQhn6hq0IPAgBXNu8fHJ6af6bygmIr/S sK/0zddz3C2qCgqHmYGBwYfrmQB0fgM4ic9Zi2I9/flH+6cLolhSHkOqGkH1m0DQ totdE00iTLVuy6VEmMmm =NcT9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Glad to hear the efforts are so appreciated. Unfortunately not everyone agrees, but I'm beginning to think that's the tragedy of internet politics :) On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
On 6/20/2010 6:35 AM, Laurens Van Houtven wrote: I have no idea what has been said by you or anyone on #python, but people *have* posted on both python-list and here on py-dev things like "Python3 is not ready for use. It is a failure. Do not use it." (any of that sound familiar? ;-) and even "Python3 should be scrapped!". I am relieve that you have disassociated yourself and #python from such sentiments.
I can understand how people coming to #python might have thought that, in retrospect. I just wanted to make that part clear :) As for the "Python 3.x is a failure" people, I just tune those out, and if they're trolling about it on IRC, ban them.
On newbies and version choice: I agree with Nick Efford that people using Python to learn about programming may be better off with Python3. I am using a subset of Python3 in a book on algorithms for the reasons he gave and others. Not even mentioned so far in this thread is the availability of unicode identifiers for people with non-Latin alphabets.
I think the difference here is probably the focus. I think you're more interested in teaching people Python in a more academic context: basically teaching CS through Python. #python, on the other hand, is trying to help people build practical tools where the CS is often an afterthought (though not as much as it is in other programming language channels which I won't name).
In the mean while, we encourage people to write code that will be easy to port and behave well in 3.x: new-style classes, don't use eager versions when the Py3k default is lazy and you don't actually need the eager thing, use as many third party libraries as possible (the idea being that this would minimize effort needed to make the switch on the grand scale of things), use absolute imports always (and only explicit relative, but it's discouraged), always have a full unit test suite.
is a good start. I think something like that would be good for the #python web page, or added to python.org somewhere.
Yeah, it's actually extremely prevalent, it's just not voiced anywhere, we could probably put it up somewhere. It's sort of up in the pound-python page but it's well-hidden in tongue-in-cheek, as Antoine pointed out :)
Terry Jan Reedy
Laurens
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 02:02, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
After reading the discussion in the previous thread, signed in to #python and verified that the intro message starts with a lie about python3. I also verified that the official #python site links to "Python Commandment Don't use Python 3… yet".
Well, it *should* say: "If you need to ask if you should use Python 2 or Python 3, you probably are better off with Python 2 for the moment". But that's a bit long. :-) -- Lennart Regebro: http://regebro.wordpress.com/ Python 3 Porting: http://python3porting.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
This anti-Py3 rhetoric is damaging to the community and needs to stop. We're moving forward toward Python 3.2 and beyond, complaining about it only saps valuable developer time (including your own) from getting these libraries you need ported faster.
No, it's not damaging. Critical self-evaluation is a useful tool.
It's useful only if constructive. Stating a problem is, in itself, just frustrating. One needs to accompany it with proposals of actions. In the specific case, I'm optimistic, though. 2.7 will be the last release of 2.x, so it will then be easier to focus on fixing the 3.x bugs. Regards, Martin
On 2010-06-19, Arc Riley wrote:
You mean Twisted support,
No. I don't. Often, on #python, we get the situation where someone approaches us saying, "I have this problem in my python code, why does this not work for me?" and usually very quickly we establish the programmer has followed a tutorial or attempted to use a library that depends on python 2, but the programmer is running python 3. Queried on why they are using python 3, the answer is frequently, "Because I downloaded the latest version." For those people, we believe it is too early to use python 3. When talking to these people with a world view of "why shouldn't i use the latest version" having a concrete preexisting statement in the topic we can point to is invaluable. We don't always ask those who are having python 3 problems to go to python2. Often we simply explain about all strings bring unicode or print now being a function, and the conversation dies. There are also programmers who definately should be using python 3 for their work. They know who they are. They do receive support in #python. -- In writing this email to python-dev, I have reviewed my logs of #python specifically looking for the phrase 'python 3'. Here are some packages that were named in the conversations: - py2exe - cx_Freeze - twisted - PIL - ctypes - email I present this list because they are what programmers are coming to #python to ask about, and that may be relevent to your discussion about python 3 ports. -- Regards, Stephen Thorne
Stephen Thorne wrote:
On 2010-06-19, Arc Riley wrote:
You mean Twisted support,
No. I don't.
Often, on #python, we get the situation where someone approaches us saying, "I have this problem in my python code, why does this not work for me?" and usually very quickly we establish the programmer has followed a tutorial or attempted to use a library that depends on python 2, but the programmer is running python 3.
Queried on why they are using python 3, the answer is frequently, "Because I downloaded the latest version."
For those people, we believe it is too early to use python 3. When talking to these people with a world view of "why shouldn't i use the latest version" having a concrete preexisting statement in the topic we can point to is invaluable.
We don't always ask those who are having python 3 problems to go to python2. Often we simply explain about all strings bring unicode or print now being a function, and the conversation dies.
There are also programmers who definately should be using python 3 for their work. They know who they are. They do receive support in #python.
--
In writing this email to python-dev, I have reviewed my logs of #python specifically looking for the phrase 'python 3'. Here are some packages that were named in the conversations:
- py2exe - cx_Freeze - twisted - PIL - ctypes - email
I present this list because they are what programmers are coming to #python to ask about, and that may be relevent to your discussion about python 3 ports.
Given the amount of interest this thread has generated I can't help wondering why it isn't more prominent in python.org content. Is the developer community completely disjoint with the web content editor community? If there is such a disconnect we should think about remedying it: a large "Python 2 or 3?" button could link to a reasoned discussion of the pros and cons as evinced in this thread. That way people will end up with the right version more often (and be writing Python 2 that will more easily migrate to Python 3, if they cannot yet use 3). There seems to be a perception that the PSF can help fund developments, and indeed Jesse Noller has made a small start with his sprint funding proposal (which now has some funding behind it). I think if it is to do so the Foundation will have to look for substantial new funding. I do not currently understand where this funding would come from, and would like to tap your developer creativity in helping to define how the Foundation can effectively commit more developer time to Python. GSoC and GHOP are great examples, but there is plenty of room for all sorts of initiatives that result in development opportunities. I'd like to help. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 See Python Video! http://python.mirocommunity.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/ "All I want for my birthday is another birthday" - Ian Dury, 1942-2000
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:00:03 +0900 Steve Holden <steve@holdenweb.com> wrote:
Given the amount of interest this thread has generated I can't help wondering why it isn't more prominent in python.org content. Is the developer community completely disjoint with the web content editor community?
Sorry for a naive question, but what is the web content editor community? Regards Antoine.
Am 20.06.2010 19:01, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:00:03 +0900 Steve Holden<steve@holdenweb.com> wrote:
Given the amount of interest this thread has generated I can't help wondering why it isn't more prominent in python.org content. Is the developer community completely disjoint with the web content editor community?
Sorry for a naive question, but what is the web content editor community?
I think he's talking about the editors of www.python.org. Regards, Martin
At 01:00 AM 6/21/2010 +0900, Steve Holden wrote:
If there is such a disconnect we should think about remedying it: a large "Python 2 or 3?" button could link to a reasoned discussion of the pros and cons as evinced in this thread. That way people will end up with the right version more often (and be writing Python 2 that will more easily migrate to Python 3, if they cannot yet use 3).
+1
If there is such a disconnect we should think about remedying it: a large "Python 2 or 3?" button could link to a reasoned discussion of the pros and cons as evinced in this thread. That way people will end up with the right version more often (and be writing Python 2 that will more easily migrate to Python 3, if they cannot yet use 3).
Me and ikanobori (Simon De Vlieger) are working on this. Laurens
On 20/06/2010 17:00, Steve Holden wrote:
[snip...]
--
In writing this email to python-dev, I have reviewed my logs of #python specifically looking for the phrase 'python 3'. Here are some packages that were named in the conversations:
- py2exe - cx_Freeze - twisted - PIL - ctypes
What is the problem with ctypes in Python 3? Are there particular problems with it - it is part of the standard library and available right?
I present this list because they are what programmers are coming to #python to ask about, and that may be relevent to your discussion about python 3 ports.
Given the amount of interest this thread has generated I can't help wondering why it isn't more prominent in python.org content. Is the developer community completely disjoint with the web content editor community?
The "web content editor community" (the python.org webmasters) is really just a handful of people. I did suggest a few weeks ago (in response to an enquiry about why there was no guide to choosing between Python 2 and 3 easily visible on the website) that we add or prominently link to a page with information like this. There was no response but I do think it would be a good idea.
If there is such a disconnect we should think about remedying it: a large "Python 2 or 3?" button could link to a reasoned discussion of the pros and cons as evinced in this thread. That way people will end up with the right version more often (and be writing Python 2 that will more easily migrate to Python 3, if they cannot yet use 3).
Yep. All the best, Michael Foord
There seems to be a perception that the PSF can help fund developments, and indeed Jesse Noller has made a small start with his sprint funding proposal (which now has some funding behind it). I think if it is to do so the Foundation will have to look for substantial new funding. I do not currently understand where this funding would come from, and would like to tap your developer creativity in helping to define how the Foundation can effectively commit more developer time to Python.
GSoC and GHOP are great examples, but there is plenty of room for all sorts of initiatives that result in development opportunities. I'd like to help.
regards Steve
-- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Steve Holden <steve@holdenweb.com> wrote: ...snip
Given the amount of interest this thread has generated I can't help wondering why it isn't more prominent in python.org content. Is the developer community completely disjoint with the web content editor community?
Yes.
If there is such a disconnect we should think about remedying it: a large "Python 2 or 3?" button could link to a reasoned discussion of the pros and cons as evinced in this thread. That way people will end up with the right version more often (and be writing Python 2 that will more easily migrate to Python 3, if they cannot yet use 3).
Yes; the website needs to change.
There seems to be a perception that the PSF can help fund developments, and indeed Jesse Noller has made a small start with his sprint funding proposal (which now has some funding behind it). I think if it is to do so the Foundation will have to look for substantial new funding. I do not currently understand where this funding would come from, and would like to tap your developer creativity in helping to define how the Foundation can effectively commit more developer time to Python.
The good news is that I've already had a few potential companies approach me to inquire as to the possibility of sponsoring porting sprints for specific itches they have. I am going to continue to encourage this on my end, as well as redirecting them to direct PSF donations as they arise. I suspect; if we were to keep pushing the concept of sponsored sprints / bounties on Python 3 library porting, we could see things pick up donation wise. I've long suspected that there are companies out there who do have funds, but lack a target, and don't see a general PSF donation as directly beneficial to their goals (although we will continue to work to convince them otherwise).
GSoC and GHOP are great examples, but there is plenty of room for all sorts of initiatives that result in development opportunities. I'd like to help.
Quick, off the seat of my pants idea - let's start by encouraging and advertising sponsored sprints in the vein I've outlined in my existing approved proposal. Once we know how to allow companies to donate directly into a fund for direct improvement / porting, we provide them a target which allows them to see measurable outcomes. Just a thought Jesse
On 6/20/2010 3:59 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
I suspect; if we were to keep pushing the concept of sponsored sprints / bounties on Python 3 library porting, we could see things pick up donation wise. I've long suspected that there are companies out there who do have funds, but lack a target, and don't see a general PSF donation as directly beneficial to their goals (although we will continue to work to convince them otherwise).
Universities **love** unrestricted donations to their general fund. But they bow to human nature and accept and even seek all kinds of targeted donations: buildings, rooms, departments, centers, institutes, programs, professorships, scholarships, research projects, curriculum developments projects, and so on. (Of course, the desire to target on the part of donors is also in part a recognition of human nature, that unrestricted funds might be used frivolously or even in a way that the donor considers obnoxious.) I think it would be great So I think it good that you/PSF try doing the same. And do not ignore individuals. Terry Jan Reedy
participants (33)
-
"Martin v. Löwis" -
anatoly techtonik -
Antoine Pitrou -
Arc Riley -
Barry Warsaw -
Brett Cannon -
Brian Curtin -
exarkun＠twistedmatrix.com -
Georg Brandl -
geremy condra -
Glyph Lefkowitz -
Jacob Kaplan-Moss -
James Mills -
Jesse Noller -
Laurens Van Houtven -
Lennart Regebro -
Mark Lawrence -
Michael Foord -
Nick Coghlan -
P.J. Eby -
Raymond Hettinger -
Senthil Kumaran -
Simon de Vlieger -
Stephan Richter -
Stephan Richter -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Stephen Thorne -
Steve Holden -
Steven D'Aprano -
Terry Reedy -
Toshio Kuratomi -
Walter Dörwald