From aahz at pythoncraft.com  Mon Oct  6 19:22:32 2008
From: aahz at pythoncraft.com (Aahz)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 10:22:32 -0700
Subject: [python-advocacy] FWD: Re: Media inquiry from Linux.com
Message-ID: <20081006172231.GA8111@panix.com>

No comment needed, I think:

----- Forwarded message from Aahz <aahz at pythoncraft.com> -----

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 10:14:20 -0700
From: Aahz <aahz at pythoncraft.com>
To: joabjack at comcast.net
Subject: Re: Media inquiry from Linux.com
Organization: The Cat & Dragon

On Sat, Oct 04, 2008, joabjack at comcast.net wrote:
>
> Terrific! Thanks for participating. I'll be sure to put a link in the
> story to your book.

That would be great!  Please use http://www.pythonfood.com/

> Could you say approximately how much Python 2.3 or 2.4 code you have
> in your current job? What is this code used for, broadly speaking?

The company I work for is http://www.pagedna.com/ -- it has been in
business for more than ten years and was started with Python 1.4.  I've
been working there for more than four years.  Our software is a web
application for taking orders and sending EPS/PDF files to printing
plants.

There's more than 200K lines of code, most of it Python.  A lot of the
code resides in template files for generating web pages.  (There's a
significant amount of JavaScript, much of which is generated by Python
code.)  Although EPS/PDF generation is the heart of our application,
there are many ancillary features to meet our customer needs (such as
approval workflow, inventory management, and reporting).

> What are your thoughts about eventually moving that code to 3.0? Would
> this be a big job? At what point, if ever, would it be necessary?

It would be a huge job, made more difficult because many of our bits of
Python code reside in web templates.  However, by the time we do the
conversion the tools for automatic conversion should be much improved.
Although both my boss (Tony Lownds) and I are active in the Python
community, we haven't even talked about 3.0 -- it's at least two or
three years away.

> In your opinion, do you think it's a wise move to forgo backward
> compatibility in Python 3.0, given both the user base and current
> limitations of the language?

First of all, I think it overstates the case to talk about "forgoing
compatibility".  The base Python language is still the same; the only
difference immediately apparent at the simple scripting level is that the
print command has changed to a function.  Python 3.0 is more about
removing mistakes and warts, many of which people have been encouraged to
avoid for years.

In addition, it is the intention to gradually merge the 2.x and 3.x
series; Python 2.6 is already a major step in that direction.

All in all, I think Python 3.0 is the kind of necessary evolution that
software needs.  It certainly isn't as big a change as going from DOS to
Windows or from Mac OS 9 to OS X.

> What qualities about Python first attracted you to the language?

Actually, I was forced to learn Python.  I was a Perl expert at the time,
and I saw no reason to learn yet another scripting language.  Since then,
I have become enamored of Python's readability and how a typical
programmer's pseudocode is trivially translated into running Python.

> Of what you read about Python 3.0, what features do you find most
> intriguing?

The fact that it's getting done at all!  For years, Python 3.0 was
referred to as Python 3000 -- the joke being that it would happen in the
year 3000 (meaning, never).  Work only started seriously three years ago,
and I think that Python 3.0 has done an excellent job of balancing the
past and the future.

> That's about it, though if you have any other thoughts about Python
> 3.0, I'd love to hear them as well.

That pretty much covers it, I think.
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"...if I were on life-support, I'd rather have it run by a Gameboy than a
Windows box."  --Cliff Wells, comp.lang.python, 3/13/2002

----- End forwarded message -----

From goodger at python.org  Mon Oct  6 20:13:41 2008
From: goodger at python.org (David Goodger)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 14:13:41 -0400
Subject: [python-advocacy] Fwd: [media inquiry] About your views on the
	Python 2.6 release
In-Reply-To: <4335d2c40810030903j77ace87fp987e531f976978b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1d4b82079f.2079f1d4b8@internet.com>
	<4335d2c40810030903j77ace87fp987e531f976978b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4335d2c40810061113k1e900eb1q3136a12cce7f6d97@mail.gmail.com>

FYI & for future reference.
The story was published on Friday (2008-10-03):
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3775901/Pythons+New+Release+Bridges+the+Gap.htm


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Goodger <goodger at python.org>
Date: Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:03
Subject: Re: [media inquiry] About your views on the Python 2.6 release
To: Sean Kerner <skerner at jupitermedia.com>


On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 15:57, Sean Kerner <skerner at jupitermedia.com> wrote:
> Q: What do you see as the most noteworthy new items in Python 2.6?
> How will they help python developers today?

Python 2.6 is an incremental release, with many new features and lots of
bug-fixes, but it remains backwards-compatible with 2.X code.  Some
highlights:

* The "with" statement (introduced as an optional feature in Python
2.5) makes it easy to implement features that require guaranteed
execution of setup and finalization code, like database transactions
and acquiring/releasing locks.

* Support for the str.format() text formatting method, a more powerful
alternative to the "%" operator, has been added.

* The new "multiprocessing" package enables the efficient use of
multiple CPU cores within a machine and even multiple machines.

* Support for abstract base classes have been added with the new "abc"
module.

See Andrew Kuchling's "What's New in Python 2.6" document for all
the details: http://docs.python.org/whatsnew/2.6.html

> Q: I know a key part of python 2.6 is python 3 compatibility - Why
> should developers care about Python 3? How will it make their
> lives/code better?

Python 2.6 isn't about Python 3 compatibility, it's about Python 2.X
compatibility.  We are not expecting (or encouraging!)  developers to
migrate to Python 3 immediately, and the Python 2.X line will continue
to be supported and improved for years to come.  Python 2.6 is an
upgrade intended for most developers of production systems.  Python
3.0 is for those who like to live on the bleeding edge.

Python 2.6 does pave the way for future migration to Python 3.0, which
is a major redesign of the language.  Here "major" means "backwards
incompatible", but superficially surprisingly little has changed; it's
still Python.

Python 3 is about cleaning up the Python language, revisiting earlier
design decisions that are now considered flaws, and fixing them.
Python 3 improves the foundations of Python going forward.

Specifically, there is an execution mode that warns about
incompatibilities with Python 3, the "-3" command-line option.  Also,
Python 2.6 includes a tool called "2to3" which converts Python 2.6
code to be compatible with Python 3.0.

> Q: How does Python 3 rc1 compare/contrast in terms of features and
> functions with Python 2.6?

First, a clarification: "rc1" means "release candidate 1".  It's a
step on the way to the final release of Python 3.0.  Recently, an
issue arose which will delay the final release of Python 3.0, and the
next step will probably be another beta release.  I expect the final
release of Python 3.0 within the next month or so, but the actual date
will be determined by the state of the codebase.  Python 3.0 will ship
when it's ready, and not before.

Python 2.6 gains several of the features of Python 3.0, but not all.
Whenever possible, Python 2.6 incorporates new features and syntax
from 3.0 while remaining compatible with existing code.  Some of these
new features and syntax are accessible through "from __future__ import
..." statements.  This allows developers to use features that would
otherwise introduce incompatibilities, on a module-by-module basis.

> Q: What are the challenges that python developers and applications
> will have in migrating from Python 2.x up to Python 3?

I think the biggest challenge will be exercising restraint.
Developers who want to migrate their applications should go slowly.
It will take some time, probably years, before Python 3.X takes over
from Python 2.X.  Most applications rely on third-party libraries,
which have to migrate first.  Some applications need never migrate to
Python 3.  Python 2.X isn't going away.

Migrating a codebase from Python 2.X to 3.X one-way, without going
back, should be easy.  The 2to3 tool will do most of the work, but a
good suite of unit tests with full code coverage is essential, to this
or any large change.

Developers who maintain both 2.X and 3.X versions of their codebases
will have to exercise the most caution.  The recommended procedure is to always
use the automated tools to convert from 2.6 to 3.0, and only edit the
2.6 code.  First port the project to Python 2.6, test and edit with
the "-3" warnings mode until no warnings remain, and use the 2to3 tool
to convert to Python 3.0 syntax.  The Python 3 version of the codebase
should be tested, and if any problems are found, corrections should be
made to the **Python 2.6** version only, and then repeat the process.

As Guido van Rossum wrote: "It is **strongly** recommended not to start
editing the 3.0 source code until you are ready to reduce 2.6 support
to pure maintenance."
(http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=208549)

> Q: Will there be a 2.7 release tied to a Python 3 rc 2 release
> perhaps?

Yes, there will be a Python 2.7 release, probably tied to a the
release of Python 3.1.

> Q: As part of this release, Python development has moved to a new
> bug tracking system (Roundup) from what you can tell so far ? will
> Roundup provide for improved bug quashing efforts?

Yes.  Roundup streamlines issue tracking immensely, so there is less
time and effort spent on issue administration and more on fixing bugs
and implementing new features.

> Thanks in advance for your time and prompt reply.

Please send me a link to the article once it's published.

--
David Goodger <http://python.net/~goodger>

From roy at panix.com  Fri Oct 24 17:18:42 2008
From: roy at panix.com (Roy Smith)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:18:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [python-advocacy] The dangers of using Python.
Message-ID: <62905.128.222.37.21.1224861522.squirrel@mail.panix.com>

As part of our advocacy program, we should probably come up with some
"talking points" to counter the inevitable complaints that Python is just
plain dangerous to use:

http://tinyurl.com/6m5fsy



From andre.roberge at gmail.com  Fri Oct 24 17:49:32 2008
From: andre.roberge at gmail.com (Andre Roberge)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:49:32 -0300
Subject: [python-advocacy] The dangers of using Python.
In-Reply-To: <62905.128.222.37.21.1224861522.squirrel@mail.panix.com>
References: <62905.128.222.37.21.1224861522.squirrel@mail.panix.com>
Message-ID: <7528bcdd0810240849o3bcfc294w2b9913b3b1bbf581@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Roy Smith <roy at panix.com> wrote:
> As part of our advocacy program, we should probably come up with some
> "talking points" to counter the inevitable complaints that Python is just
> plain dangerous to use:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6m5fsy
>
Ouch!

Well, I find Python dangerous:
* it's highly addictive;
* it makes one less tolerant (of other languages)

I'm sure that others could come up with other points...

Andr?


>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy mailing list
> Advocacy at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy
>