Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.misc > #10562 > unrolled thread

Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.misc

Contents

  Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-19 05:17 +0000
    Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-13 23:31 -0400
      Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-14 02:25 -0700
        Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-15 00:58 -0400
          Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-14 23:04 -0700
            Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> - 2025-06-15 14:46 +0100
              Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-15 13:44 -0700
                Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> - 2025-06-16 18:32 +0100
                  Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-16 11:38 -0700
              Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-15 21:02 +0000
                Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> - 2025-06-16 18:34 +0100
                  Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-16 23:07 +0000
            Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-17 23:38 -0400
              Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-18 09:27 -0700
                Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-19 01:30 -0400
                  Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-19 02:23 -0700
                    Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-20 01:27 -0400
                      Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-20 12:32 -0700
      Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-08-06 16:30 +0200
        Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-06 08:17 -0700
          Re: Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-08-07 03:49 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#10562 — Writing Python Code More Concisely Than Perl!?

Been doing some LDAP stuff lately, and I came across the
“migrationtools” package
<https://gitlab.com/future-ad-laboratory/migrationtools> for
converting the contents of /etc/passwd and family to LDAP records.
This is a bunch of Perl code, full of lines like these:

    if ($shell) {
        print $HANDLE "loginShell: $shell\n";
    }

    if ($uid ne "") {
        print $HANDLE "uidNumber: $uid\n";
    } else {
        print $HANDLE "uidNumber:\n";
    }

    if ($gid ne "") {
        print $HANDLE "gidNumber: $gid\n";
    } else {
        print $HANDLE "gidNumber:\n";
    }

    if ($homedir) {
        print $HANDLE "homeDirectory: $homedir\n";
    } else {
        print $HANDLE "homeDirectory:\n";
    }

Perl is supposed to be famous, even notorious, for the conciseness of
its code, but I think whoever created this originally didn’t get that
memo.

I created an alternative tool
<https://bitbucket.org/ldo17/passwd_to_ldap>, focusing just on the
passwd, shadow and group files, and leaving out the macOS
compatibility. My code for writing out a single LDIF record is
basically this:

    write_attr \
      (
        out,
        "dn",
        "%s=%s,%s" % (table.dn_field, escape_dn(entry[table.keyfield]), tabledn)
      )
    for objclass in table.object_classes :
        write_attr(out, "objectClass", objclass)
    #end for
    write_attr(out, "objectClass", "top")
    for field, key in table.ldap_mapping :
        if key in entry :
            value = entry[key]
            if isinstance(value, (list, tuple)) :
                for item in value :
                    write_attr(out, field, item)
                #end for
            else :
                write_attr(out, field, value)
            #end if
        #end if
    #end for
    out.write("\n")

If you total the sizes of migrate_passwd.pl and migrate_group.pl, you
get 496 lines (not including migrate_common.ph). My entire script
is just 341 lines.

Of course, what I didn’t show you above is the table of rules that
drives that common LDIF-writing code, to steer the different
processing of the different files and their fields. But that complete
table is just 63 lines.

This is quite common with table-driven aka data-driven programming:
you might think that factoring out common code into a more generic
form, with the different cases defined in a data structure, just moves
the complexity from one place to another, but in fact it is usually
the case that you end up with less code overall.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11105

On 5/19/24 1:17 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Been doing some LDAP stuff lately, and I came across the
> “migrationtools” package
> <https://gitlab.com/future-ad-laboratory/migrationtools> for
> converting the contents of /etc/passwd and family to LDAP records.
> This is a bunch of Perl code, full of lines like these:
> 
>      if ($shell) {
>          print $HANDLE "loginShell: $shell\n";
>      }
> 
>      if ($uid ne "") {
>          print $HANDLE "uidNumber: $uid\n";
>      } else {
>          print $HANDLE "uidNumber:\n";
>      }
> 
>      if ($gid ne "") {
>          print $HANDLE "gidNumber: $gid\n";
>      } else {
>          print $HANDLE "gidNumber:\n";
>      }
> 
>      if ($homedir) {
>          print $HANDLE "homeDirectory: $homedir\n";
>      } else {
>          print $HANDLE "homeDirectory:\n";
>      }
> 
> Perl is supposed to be famous, even notorious, for the conciseness of
> its code, but I think whoever created this originally didn’t get that
> memo.
> 
> I created an alternative tool
> <https://bitbucket.org/ldo17/passwd_to_ldap>, focusing just on the
> passwd, shadow and group files, and leaving out the macOS
> compatibility. My code for writing out a single LDIF record is
> basically this:
> 
>      write_attr \
>        (
>          out,
>          "dn",
>          "%s=%s,%s" % (table.dn_field, escape_dn(entry[table.keyfield]), tabledn)
>        )
>      for objclass in table.object_classes :
>          write_attr(out, "objectClass", objclass)
>      #end for
>      write_attr(out, "objectClass", "top")
>      for field, key in table.ldap_mapping :
>          if key in entry :
>              value = entry[key]
>              if isinstance(value, (list, tuple)) :
>                  for item in value :
>                      write_attr(out, field, item)
>                  #end for
>              else :
>                  write_attr(out, field, value)
>              #end if
>          #end if
>      #end for
>      out.write("\n")
> 
> If you total the sizes of migrate_passwd.pl and migrate_group.pl, you
> get 496 lines (not including migrate_common.ph). My entire script
> is just 341 lines.
> 
> Of course, what I didn’t show you above is the table of rules that
> drives that common LDIF-writing code, to steer the different
> processing of the different files and their fields. But that complete
> table is just 63 lines.
> 
> This is quite common with table-driven aka data-driven programming:
> you might think that factoring out common code into a more generic
> form, with the different cases defined in a data structure, just moves
> the complexity from one place to another, but in fact it is usually
> the case that you end up with less code overall.

   PERL *can* be concise. It's also closer to a 'shell-script'
   language, which makes it more challenging to write AND
   understand six months later.

   Frankly, Python is just generally 'better' these days.
   Maybe not AS 'concise' but more 'readable' AND easier
   to understand six months from now. The speed is now
   'adequate' and Python-4 is supposed to be even faster.

   There is some computer stuff that really should be done
   in 'C' (I remember when it was the cool NEW lang !) ...
   but now I'm far more likely to write in Python for the
   abovementioned reasons.

   And hey, BASIC still exists ... though not as nicely
   structured it can STILL get the job done. Also consider
   one of the 'C-shells'.

   Since the 60s, seems like EVERYBODY had their "better
   idea" about programming languages and styles. However
   only a very FEW have stood the test of time. I can
   still write some COBOL and FORTRAN ... occasionally
   do so Just For Fun ... but their overall utility has
   greatly diminished compared to later langs.

   (I *do* still often write in PASCAL though - see
   it as a kind of 'poetry' :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11106

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
[...]
> Frankly, Python is just generally 'better' these days.
> Maybe not AS 'concise' but more 'readable' AND easier
> to understand six months from now. The speed is now
> 'adequate' and Python-4 is supposed to be even faster.

Where are you getting your information?  There are no plans for
Python 4.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11107

On 6/14/25 5:25 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
> [...]
>> Frankly, Python is just generally 'better' these days.
>> Maybe not AS 'concise' but more 'readable' AND easier
>> to understand six months from now. The speed is now
>> 'adequate' and Python-4 is supposed to be even faster.
> 
> Where are you getting your information?  There are no plans for
> Python 4.

   Nonsense ... search on it.

   The PLAN is far fewer diffs than between P2 and P3,
   just more optimization.

   I'd say expect early releases within a year.

   Python HAS become Very Good. Most of the libs
   are writ in 'C'. Endless contributors have
   added SO much. You can understand it, understand
   what you wrote 6+ months ago. It's become one
   of the Great Languages.

   'C' and near friends ARE faster - I still write
   in 'C' sometimes - but Python is just usually
   Kinder-and-Gentler and VASTLY supported.

   Oh, I remember when 'C' was the COOL NEW LANG
   way back in the PDP-11/punch-card days. Still
   have my K&R manual - and stick pretty close.

   Hey, I can also write some COBOL and FORTRAN, but
   generally don't. Can you guess why ?  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11108

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
> On 6/14/25 5:25 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>> [...]
>>> Frankly, Python is just generally 'better' these days.
>>> Maybe not AS 'concise' but more 'readable' AND easier
>>> to understand six months from now. The speed is now
>>> 'adequate' and Python-4 is supposed to be even faster.
>> Where are you getting your information?  There are no plans for
>> Python 4.
>
>   Nonsense ... search on it.

I did.

>   The PLAN is far fewer diffs than between P2 and P3,
>   just more optimization.
>
>   I'd say expect early releases within a year.

What is the basis for that claim?

Maybe you're right.  If so, you shouldn't have any difficulty citing a
credible source.

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11109

On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 23:04:24 -0700
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:

> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
> > On 6/14/25 5:25 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:  
> >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
> >> [...]  
>  [...]  
> >> Where are you getting your information?  There are no plans for
> >> Python 4.  
> >
> >   Nonsense ... search on it.  
> 
> I did.
> 
> >   The PLAN is far fewer diffs than between P2 and P3,
> >   just more optimization.
> >
> >   I'd say expect early releases within a year.  
> 
> What is the basis for that claim?
> 
> Maybe you're right.  If so, you shouldn't have any difficulty citing a
> credible source.
> 
> [...]
> 

No idea if this is credible or not:

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/python/latest-update-on-python-4/

but it popped up right at the top of my search results.

I have no dog in this fight.

-- 

Brian Morrison                       "No, his mind is not for rent
                                      To any god or government
                                      Always hopeful, but discontent
                                      He knows changes aren't permanent
                                      But change is"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11110

Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> writes:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 23:04:24 -0700
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>> > On 6/14/25 5:25 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:  
>> >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>> >> [...]  
>>  [...]  
>> >> Where are you getting your information?  There are no plans for
>> >> Python 4.  
>> >
>> >   Nonsense ... search on it.  
>> 
>> I did.
>> 
>> >   The PLAN is far fewer diffs than between P2 and P3,
>> >   just more optimization.
>> >
>> >   I'd say expect early releases within a year.  
>> 
>> What is the basis for that claim?
>> 
>> Maybe you're right.  If so, you shouldn't have any difficulty citing a
>> credible source.
>> 
>> [...]
>
> No idea if this is credible or not:
>
> https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/python/latest-update-on-python-4/
>
> but it popped up right at the top of my search results.
>
> I have no dog in this fight.

That article does not suggest that a Python 4 release is likely
any time soon.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11112

On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 13:44:40 -0700
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I have no dog in this fight.  
> 
> That article does not suggest that a Python 4 release is likely
> any time soon.

The way I read it, it's not a no, and it's not really a yes. But python
3.99 could eventually happen and they may get bored with the minor
number incrementing at some point.

-- 

Brian Morrison                       "No, his mind is not for rent
                                      To any god or government
                                      Always hopeful, but discontent
                                      He knows changes aren't permanent
                                      But change is"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11114

Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> writes:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 13:44:40 -0700
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > I have no dog in this fight.  
>> 
>> That article does not suggest that a Python 4 release is likely
>> any time soon.
>
> The way I read it, it's not a no, and it's not really a yes. But python
> 3.99 could eventually happen and they may get bored with the minor
> number incrementing at some point.

My point was that "c186282" made some very specific claims:

  Frankly, Python is just generally 'better' these days.
  Maybe not AS 'concise' but more 'readable' AND easier
  to understand six months from now. The speed is now
  'adequate' and Python-4 is supposed to be even faster.

and

  The PLAN is far fewer diffs than between P2 and P3,
  just more optimization.

  I'd say expect early releases within a year.

My question is not so much "Is there going to be a Python 4?" (I
already have an adequate answer to that: it could happen some day,
but there are no plans for it), as "What exactly is c186282 talking
about, and can they support their remarkable claims?".  If c186282
doesn't reply in this thread, I'll consider that to be an answer.

I humbly suggest that anyone who wants to discuss whether
there's going to be a Python 4 start a new thread, perhaps on
comp.lang.python.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11111

On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 14:46:24 +0100, Brian Morrison wrote:

> No idea if this is credible or not:
> 
> https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/python/latest-update-on-python-4/
> 
> but it popped up right at the top of my search results.

You get points for using a search instead of AI. ;)

Seems a reasonable bunch of points. Of course Guido is no longer BDFL, so 
I don’t think his opinions automatically count for more than anybody 
else’s. But he still gets the respect, of course.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11113

On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:02:22 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 14:46:24 +0100, Brian Morrison wrote:
> 
> > No idea if this is credible or not:
> > 
> > https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/python/latest-update-on-python-4/
> > 
> > but it popped up right at the top of my search results.  
> 
> You get points for using a search instead of AI. ;)

I see the AI results at the top of my search output, sometimes they're
right, sometimes they're not.

> 
> Seems a reasonable bunch of points. Of course Guido is no longer
> BDFL, so I don’t think his opinions automatically count for more than
> anybody else’s. But he still gets the respect, of course.

Indeed, and python has been a fairly big success on the whole.

I still struggle with syntax that needs indents to be there rather than
simply being a reading aid.

-- 

Brian Morrison                       "No, his mind is not for rent
                                      To any god or government
                                      Always hopeful, but discontent
                                      He knows changes aren't permanent
                                      But change is"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11115

On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:34:56 +0100, Brian Morrison wrote:

> I still struggle with syntax that needs indents to be there rather
> than simply being a reading aid.

After my first few months of writing Python, I decided to start
putting in “#end” comments to mark the ends of compound statements.
E.g.

    def mapiter(self, pts) :
        "maps an iterable of Vectors through the Matrix."
        pts = iter(pts)
        while True :
            try :
                yield self.map(next(pts))
            except StopIteration :
                break
            #end try
        #end while
    #end mapiter

In conventional languages you have redundancy between the use of
statement brackets (which the compiler understands) versus indentation
(which the compiler ignores but the human understands). Python got rid
of this redundancy, so I put it back with the “#end” comments as the
cue that the compiler ignores but the human understands.

I also have custom commands defined in Emacs to jump between lines
with matching indentation. This lets me quickly navigate between the
beginnings and ends of compound statements.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11116

On 6/15/25 2:04 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>> On 6/14/25 5:25 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>> Frankly, Python is just generally 'better' these days.
>>>> Maybe not AS 'concise' but more 'readable' AND easier
>>>> to understand six months from now. The speed is now
>>>> 'adequate' and Python-4 is supposed to be even faster.
>>> Where are you getting your information?  There are no plans for
>>> Python 4.
>>
>>    Nonsense ... search on it.
> 
> I did.


   Umm ... I've seen a lot of juicy details
   about Py4 over the past year .....

   No, it won't show up this year - but MAYBE
   next year. In any case they promise high
   compatibility with Py3. The goal is more
   'optimization' than underlying structure.


>>    The PLAN is far fewer diffs than between P2 and P3,
>>    just more optimization.
>>
>>    I'd say expect early releases within a year.
> 
> What is the basis for that claim?
> 
> Maybe you're right.  If so, you shouldn't have any difficulty citing a
> credible source.
> 
> [...]
> 

   Wanna pay me for that much re-research ?

   This is usenet - take what you can get.

   In any case, Python development is hardly
   a big secret. Do some searching.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11117

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
> On 6/15/25 2:04 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>>> On 6/14/25 5:25 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Frankly, Python is just generally 'better' these days.
>>>>> Maybe not AS 'concise' but more 'readable' AND easier
>>>>> to understand six months from now. The speed is now
>>>>> 'adequate' and Python-4 is supposed to be even faster.
>>>> Where are you getting your information?  There are no plans for
>>>> Python 4.
>>>
>>>    Nonsense ... search on it.
>> I did.
>
>   Umm ... I've seen a lot of juicy details
>   about Py4 over the past year .....
>
>   No, it won't show up this year - but MAYBE
>   next year. In any case they promise high
>   compatibility with Py3. The goal is more
>   'optimization' than underlying structure.
>
>>>    The PLAN is far fewer diffs than between P2 and P3,
>>>    just more optimization.
>>>
>>>    I'd say expect early releases within a year.
>> 
>> What is the basis for that claim?  Maybe you're right.  If so, you
>> shouldn't have any difficulty citing a credible source.
>> [...]
>
>   Wanna pay me for that much re-research ?

No, I'm asking you to support a remarkable claim that *you* made.
If what you say is true, it would be very interesting and I'd want
to know more about it.

>   This is usenet - take what you can get.
>
>   In any case, Python development is hardly
>   a big secret. Do some searching.

You claimed that I could easily verify that there are plans for
Python 4 by searching for it.  I searched for it, and found that
there are no such plans.  Limiting the search to python.org,
where any such plans would surely be posted, yields no results
other than speculation in open discussions (discuss.python.org).
You specifically said to "expect early releases within a year".
The result of my search specifically contradicted your claims.
I found one article misleadingly titled "Latest Update on Python
4.0" that says that "while Python 4.0 may be more of a speculative
idea than a forthcoming reality, the Python community can look
forward to ongoing enhancements within the Python 3.x series".
<https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/python/latest-update-on-python-4/>

If finding this information (to support *your* claim) is so easy,
you shouldn't have any problem providing a credible citation.  Your
failure/refusal to do so tells me that you are an unreliable source
of information, and that you have wasted my time.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11118

On 6/18/25 12:27 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>> On 6/15/25 2:04 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>>>> On 6/14/25 5:25 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Frankly, Python is just generally 'better' these days.
>>>>>> Maybe not AS 'concise' but more 'readable' AND easier
>>>>>> to understand six months from now. The speed is now
>>>>>> 'adequate' and Python-4 is supposed to be even faster.
>>>>> Where are you getting your information?  There are no plans for
>>>>> Python 4.
>>>>
>>>>     Nonsense ... search on it.
>>> I did.
>>
>>    Umm ... I've seen a lot of juicy details
>>    about Py4 over the past year .....
>>
>>    No, it won't show up this year - but MAYBE
>>    next year. In any case they promise high
>>    compatibility with Py3. The goal is more
>>    'optimization' than underlying structure.
>>
>>>>     The PLAN is far fewer diffs than between P2 and P3,
>>>>     just more optimization.
>>>>
>>>>     I'd say expect early releases within a year.
>>>
>>> What is the basis for that claim?  Maybe you're right.  If so, you
>>> shouldn't have any difficulty citing a credible source.
>>> [...]
>>
>>    Wanna pay me for that much re-research ?
> 
> No, I'm asking you to support a remarkable claim that *you* made.
> If what you say is true, it would be very interesting and I'd want
> to know more about it.
> 
>>    This is usenet - take what you can get.
>>
>>    In any case, Python development is hardly
>>    a big secret. Do some searching.
> 
> You claimed that I could easily verify that there are plans for
> Python 4 by searching for it.  I searched for it, and found that
> there are no such plans. 

   ????????

 
https://blog.bytescrum.com/the-future-of-python-what-to-expect-in-python-40

   https://builtin.com/software-engineering-perspectives/python-4

 
https://medium.com/@etherservices.mohandgm/python-4-0-and-beyond-what-lies-ahead-34d39ba6e953

 
https://www.codewithc.com/when-python-4-predictions-and-expectations-for-python-4/

 
https://techinsightdaily.com/227/python-4-0-whats-new-and-what-you-need-to-know/

   And on and on and on ...

   WHY do you pretend there's no info ????????

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11119

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
> On 6/18/25 12:27 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>>> On 6/15/25 2:04 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>>>>> On 6/14/25 5:25 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> Frankly, Python is just generally 'better' these days.
>>>>>>> Maybe not AS 'concise' but more 'readable' AND easier
>>>>>>> to understand six months from now. The speed is now
>>>>>>> 'adequate' and Python-4 is supposed to be even faster.
>>>>>> Where are you getting your information?  There are no plans for
>>>>>> Python 4.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Nonsense ... search on it.
>>>> I did.
>>>
>>>    Umm ... I've seen a lot of juicy details
>>>    about Py4 over the past year .....
>>>
>>>    No, it won't show up this year - but MAYBE
>>>    next year. In any case they promise high
>>>    compatibility with Py3. The goal is more
>>>    'optimization' than underlying structure.
>>>
>>>>>     The PLAN is far fewer diffs than between P2 and P3,
>>>>>     just more optimization.
>>>>>
>>>>>     I'd say expect early releases within a year.
>>>>
>>>> What is the basis for that claim?  Maybe you're right.  If so, you
>>>> shouldn't have any difficulty citing a credible source.
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>>    Wanna pay me for that much re-research ?
>> No, I'm asking you to support a remarkable claim that *you* made.
>> If what you say is true, it would be very interesting and I'd want
>> to know more about it.
>> 
>>>    This is usenet - take what you can get.
>>>
>>>    In any case, Python development is hardly
>>>    a big secret. Do some searching.
>> You claimed that I could easily verify that there are plans for
>> Python 4 by searching for it.  I searched for it, and found that
>> there are no such plans. 
>
>   ????????
>
>
> https://blog.bytescrum.com/the-future-of-python-what-to-expect-in-python-40

Speculation.

"As of now, there is no official release date for Python 4.0. The Python
Software Foundation (PSF) has not announced any specific timeline for
its release."

>   https://builtin.com/software-engineering-perspectives/python-4

Did you actually read that one?  "Python 4.0 is unlikely to be released
due to compatibility issues experienced during the transition from
Python 2 to Python 3. Here’s more on why Python 4.0 won’t happen, how
Python 3 is being improved and what it would take to make Python 4.0 a
reality."

> https://medium.com/@etherservices.mohandgm/python-4-0-and-beyond-what-lies-ahead-34d39ba6e953

The author thinks there's going to be a Python 4 -- or thought so 2
years ago, when the article was written.  I see no evidence that the
author has any inside information.

> https://www.codewithc.com/when-python-4-predictions-and-expectations-for-python-4/

Speculation from late 2023.  "As of now, the official release date for
Python 4 remains shrouded in mystery. However, if we paint a speculative
picture based on previous release patterns, we might be looking at
Python 4 making its grand entrance somewhere in the mid-2020s. But hey,
don’t hold me to that—Python’s release timeline can be as unpredictable
as Delhi’s weather!"

> https://techinsightdaily.com/227/python-4-0-whats-new-and-what-you-need-to-know/

Speculation from early 2023.  The author talks about Python 4.0 in the
present tense.

"Python 4.0 will also include improvements to the standard library. One
of the most significant improvements is the addition of a new "pathlib"
module, which provides a more modern and object-oriented way to work
with file paths. The "pathlib" module will make it easier to write
cross-platform code that works on Windows, Mac, and Linux."

pathlib was added in Python 3.4, released in 2014, 9 years before the
article was written.

>   And on and on and on ...
>
>   WHY do you pretend there's no info ????????

I pretended nothing.  Of course there's going to be speculation
about a future Python 4 release.  Guido van Rossum, the creator
of Python, has said explicitly that Python 4.0 will never arrive.
Admittedly he is no longer the BDFL, but I'm not aware of any
changes in that policy.

You told me that a simple search would support your claim and
initially refused to provide links.  A simple search turned up
multiple credible sources saying that there are no plans for Python
4.0.  You've posted some links that appear to be speculative (and
as I said, such speculation is unsurprising), and none from insiders.

*If* a Python 4 release is planned for the next couple of years or so,
it's a well kept secret.

Will you consider the possibility that you might be mistaken?  Or,
if you're right, can you provide a link to something on python.org
that supports your claim?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11120

On 6/19/25 5:23 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>> On 6/18/25 12:27 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>>>> On 6/15/25 2:04 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>>>>>> On 6/14/25 5:25 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> Frankly, Python is just generally 'better' these days.
>>>>>>>> Maybe not AS 'concise' but more 'readable' AND easier
>>>>>>>> to understand six months from now. The speed is now
>>>>>>>> 'adequate' and Python-4 is supposed to be even faster.
>>>>>>> Where are you getting your information?  There are no plans for
>>>>>>> Python 4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Nonsense ... search on it.
>>>>> I did.
>>>>
>>>>     Umm ... I've seen a lot of juicy details
>>>>     about Py4 over the past year .....
>>>>
>>>>     No, it won't show up this year - but MAYBE
>>>>     next year. In any case they promise high
>>>>     compatibility with Py3. The goal is more
>>>>     'optimization' than underlying structure.
>>>>
>>>>>>      The PLAN is far fewer diffs than between P2 and P3,
>>>>>>      just more optimization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      I'd say expect early releases within a year.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the basis for that claim?  Maybe you're right.  If so, you
>>>>> shouldn't have any difficulty citing a credible source.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>     Wanna pay me for that much re-research ?
>>> No, I'm asking you to support a remarkable claim that *you* made.
>>> If what you say is true, it would be very interesting and I'd want
>>> to know more about it.
>>>
>>>>     This is usenet - take what you can get.
>>>>
>>>>     In any case, Python development is hardly
>>>>     a big secret. Do some searching.
>>> You claimed that I could easily verify that there are plans for
>>> Python 4 by searching for it.  I searched for it, and found that
>>> there are no such plans.
>>
>>    ????????
>>
>>
>> https://blog.bytescrum.com/the-future-of-python-what-to-expect-in-python-40
> 
> Speculation.
> 
> "As of now, there is no official release date for Python 4.0. The Python
> Software Foundation (PSF) has not announced any specific timeline for
> its release."
> 
>>    https://builtin.com/software-engineering-perspectives/python-4
> 
> Did you actually read that one?  "Python 4.0 is unlikely to be released
> due to compatibility issues experienced during the transition from
> Python 2 to Python 3. Here’s more on why Python 4.0 won’t happen, how
> Python 3 is being improved and what it would take to make Python 4.0 a
> reality."
> 
>> https://medium.com/@etherservices.mohandgm/python-4-0-and-beyond-what-lies-ahead-34d39ba6e953
> 
> The author thinks there's going to be a Python 4 -- or thought so 2
> years ago, when the article was written.  I see no evidence that the
> author has any inside information.
> 
>> https://www.codewithc.com/when-python-4-predictions-and-expectations-for-python-4/
> 
> Speculation from late 2023.  "As of now, the official release date for
> Python 4 remains shrouded in mystery. However, if we paint a speculative
> picture based on previous release patterns, we might be looking at
> Python 4 making its grand entrance somewhere in the mid-2020s. But hey,
> don’t hold me to that—Python’s release timeline can be as unpredictable
> as Delhi’s weather!"
> 
>> https://techinsightdaily.com/227/python-4-0-whats-new-and-what-you-need-to-know/
> 
> Speculation from early 2023.  The author talks about Python 4.0 in the
> present tense.
> 
> "Python 4.0 will also include improvements to the standard library. One
> of the most significant improvements is the addition of a new "pathlib"
> module, which provides a more modern and object-oriented way to work
> with file paths. The "pathlib" module will make it easier to write
> cross-platform code that works on Windows, Mac, and Linux."
> 
> pathlib was added in Python 3.4, released in 2014, 9 years before the
> article was written.
> 
>>    And on and on and on ...
>>
>>    WHY do you pretend there's no info ????????
> 
> I pretended nothing.  Of course there's going to be speculation
> about a future Python 4 release.  Guido van Rossum, the creator
> of Python, has said explicitly that Python 4.0 will never arrive.
> Admittedly he is no longer the BDFL, but I'm not aware of any
> changes in that policy.
> 
> You told me that a simple search would support your claim and
> initially refused to provide links.  A simple search turned up
> multiple credible sources saying that there are no plans for Python
> 4.0.  You've posted some links that appear to be speculative (and
> as I said, such speculation is unsurprising), and none from insiders.
> 
> *If* a Python 4 release is planned for the next couple of years or so,
> it's a well kept secret.
> 
> Will you consider the possibility that you might be mistaken?  Or,
> if you're right, can you provide a link to something on python.org
> that supports your claim?


   There WILL be a Python-4 ... have no doubts. Developers
   will work at it obsessively.

   Figure at least one year, maybe two.

   Too much beyond that and it'll be all 'AI' instead.
   You won't really "program", just roughly *describe*
   what you want the app to do and critique a bit.
   SO dull !  NO brains required.

   Until Vlad and Xi DESTROY it .......

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11121

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
[...]
>   There WILL be a Python-4 ... have no doubts. Developers
>   will work at it obsessively.
>
>   Figure at least one year, maybe two.
[...]

How do you know that?  Do you have inside information?  Why are you
unable to provide firm evidence that refutes the clear statements
that there are no plans for Python-4?

I don't really expect you to answer in any meaningful way.  Feel free
to drop this discussion.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11129

On 14.06.2025 05:31, c186282 wrote:
>> [python] 
>
>   PERL *can* be concise. It's also closer to a 'shell-script'
>   language, which makes it more challenging to write AND
>   understand six months later.
> 
>   Frankly, Python is just generally 'better' these days.
>   Maybe not AS 'concise' but more 'readable' AND easier
>   to understand six months from now. The speed is now
>   'adequate' and Python-4 is supposed to be even faster.
> 
>   There is some computer stuff that really should be done
>   in 'C' (I remember when it was the cool NEW lang !) ...
>   but now I'm far more likely to write in Python for the
>   abovementioned reasons.

>   And hey, BASIC still exists ... though not as nicely
>   structured it can STILL get the job done. Also consider
>   one of the 'C-shells'.

This last paragraph is disturbing. Of course you can also
use, say, INTERCAL to "get the job done", but is that the
measure of things!?

Just recently I picked a piece of old BASIC code - granted,
it was not one of the fancier new BASIC dialects but back
from the "glory mainframe days" - and tried to understand
this trash in an attempt to create (in a refactoring task)
some structured code from it (Algol 68 in this case). That
was a horrible, quite time-consuming attempt (and yet I
achieved only something like an "80% solution").

Also mentioning the "C shells" for programming; I thought
meanwhile (after half a centenary!) we should not mention
the C-shells in any contexts of "sensible programming".

> 
>   Since the 60s, seems like EVERYBODY had their "better
>   idea" about programming languages and styles. However
>   only a very FEW have stood the test of time. I can
>   still write some COBOL and FORTRAN ... occasionally
>   do so Just For Fun ... but their overall utility has
>   greatly diminished compared to later langs.

Well, I think this should be differentiated a bit...
> EVERYBODY had their "better idea"
appears to me, on the longer time scale, unnecessarily
disparaging.

The time constraints, motivations based on application
areas, language designers, and the creation processes
were quite manifold (without going into the details; it
would go to far here[*]).

What we observe more recently is, it seems, that folks
(individuals) _just write_ their own languages if they
have some ideas (maybe "idee fixe") what they'd like
to have. Not surprising given that IT was historically
restricted to a small community of experts, and now we
have not only more experts but also "everyone" owns or
has access to computers.

The "test of time" is, in my experience, also not any
good measurement of excellence in language design.
Language were designed and fit for some purpose. Some
that shouldn't be touched with a barge pole survived,
others didn't make it; here politics and marketing are
and were also substantial relevant factors to consider.

But languages are not and end in itself, they're just
tools that should be used as they fit in the projects.

> 
>   (I *do* still often write in PASCAL though - see
>   it as a kind of 'poetry' :-)

I understand that very well! There's some languages
that introduced noteworthy concepts, others are just
pretty, some simple to use, or easy to get programs
right.

Janis

[*] Compare the mentioned factors for FORTRAN, COBOL,
PL-I, Simula, Algol 60, BASIC, Algol 68, Pascal, Ada,
"C", C++, Java, Perl, Javacript, PHP, Python, to pick
a few languages with specific creation characteristics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11130

On Wed, 6 Aug 2025 16:30:36 +0200
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Just recently I picked a piece of old BASIC code - granted,
> it was not one of the fancier new BASIC dialects but back
> from the "glory mainframe days"

Yeah, the Elder BASICs are a different story. FreeBasic made a fairly
decent language out of the QB lineage, though - still use that semi-
regularly for proof-of-concept stuff and quick li'l one-off utilities.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.misc

csiph-web