2.7 beta 1

[Mensanator]

On Apr 11, 6:08 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:54:04 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 11:53 am, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
> > cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:08:44 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
> >> >> > 3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed. As of now,
> >> >> > it's seriously broken and unsuitable for production.
>
> >> >> In what ways do you consider it broken?
>
> >> > Issue 8093. Remarkably, this apparently hasn't been noticed before.
>
> >> I think that tells you that it's an unimportant bug that doesn't really
> >> effect many people much,
>
> > It affects  me ... a LOT.
>
> I suspect you're exaggerating,

I'm not. I often use a USB drive to store my source programs, makes it
easy to switch between computers. Not being able to eject the USB
drive
is annoying, but not a game breaker. Likewise, I usually don't shut
down
when I leave work, so I can't allow orphaned processes to accumulate
eating up CPU and memory.

> but even if you're not, you are not the entire Python community.

This is probably happening to everyone, they just haven't noticed.

> You stated that "3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed".
> It sounds like what you really mean was
> "3.x won't be adopted by *me* until it's fixed"

Not at all. The only 3rd party library I use is gmpy, and that's been
updated, so I have more or less abandoned 2.x in favor of 3.x. I have
not installed the latest 2.6 version and have no intention of ever
installing 2.7
.
>
> 3.x is already being adopted by developers.

Let's hope a little thing like this won't upset them.

> The two biggest factors
> slowing uptake of 3.x are: (1) lack of big libraries like numpy, and (2)
> that major Linux distros still ship with 2.6 or 2.5.

It was even worse with Mac OSX 10.6. Luckily, there's macports, so it
all got resolved.

>
> >> and a million miles from implying that Python 3.x is "seriously broken
> >> and unsuitable for production".
>
> > Maybe because I'm a user, not a developer.
>
> You write code. You use an Integrated DEVELOPMENT Environment. That makes
> you a developer.

Being a little pedantic here, aren't we? Would it help if I said
"professional"
developer? After all, just because I dabble in Collatz Conjecture
research as
a hobby, it doesn't give me the right to go around calling myself a
mathematician.

>
> >> > I expect 2.7 will be around for a long time.
>
> >> As reported on the bug tracker, this bug effects Python 2.7 as well.
> >> It's possible this bug goes back to, what? Python 2.5? 2.4? 2.3? Older?
> >> Who knows?
>
> > I can't imagine my not having noticed this before. It's plausible I
> > might not have noticed the runaway processes, but the fact that I can't
> > eject a USB drive would have been very obvious.
>
> Have you tried to reproduce it on 2.6 or 2.5?

No, all I can say is I haven't noticed it there. And given the
symptoms,
I can't see how I could have not noticed it.

On the other hand, I can't see how it could have gone unnoticed on
3.x.

You don't suppose I'm the only one actually using 3.1?

> Unless you actively try to
> reproduce it, you can't assume it doesn't occur.

True, just as you can't assume I'm the only one it's happening to.

>
> >>http://bugs.python.org/issue8093#msg102818
>
> >> In any case, IDLE is one IDE out of many, and not really up to
> >> professional quality -- it's clunky and ugly. It isn't Python, it is a
> >> tool written in Python.
>
> > You have no idea what the cause is, yet you're certain that the symptom
> > is confined to IDLE.
>
> Certain? Of course not. But given an issue that is reported with a single
> application, which is more likely? That it is a bug in the language, or a
> bug in the application?

*I* never said the LANGUAGE was broken. I specifically made reference
to the
Windows implementation of 3.1.2.

>
> Even if it is a bug in the language, some fundamental failure of the
> underlying Python virtual machine or built-in objects, there are dozens
> of standard library modules, and thousands of third-party modules, that
> it doesn't affect.

I assume you mean when not run in IDLE. And how do you know they're
not
affected? Didn't you just get done yelling at me for not testing it in
2.5 & 2.6?

>
> > That's the kind of thinking that leads to such bugs in the first place.
>
> Riiiight.

You think these bugs are done deliberately?

>
> --
> Steven