Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!nerim.net!novso.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4a.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
To: python-list@python.org
From: Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au>
Subject: Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:22:39 +1100
References: <mf9hu0$jpu$1@dont-email.me> <mailman.313.1427656270.10327.python-list@python.org> <55185E5D.5080604@animats.com> <mf9uou$8k0$1@dont-email.me> <mailman.320.1427669877.10327.python-list@python.org> <87ego7s3e4.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gG4P0ut3cSri/Ade35qzdj1NnJ0=
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.322.1427678553.10327.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 62
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:88300

Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:

> Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> writes:
> > Why are you discussing it as though Python 3 is at fault?  What do you
> > expect to change *about Python 3* that would address the perceived
> > problem? Whose responsibility is it to do that?
>
> Those questions seem unfair to me. Nagle posted an experience report
> about a real-world project to migrate a Python 2 codebase to Python 3.

He presented it explicitly in support of the claim that he is “screwed
by Python 3”:

    I keep thinking I'm almost done with Python 3 hell, but then I
    get screwed by Python 3 again.

The story, though, gives no support that this is specially Python 3's
fault. I am asking questions to get John Nagle to explain how Python 3
in particular has caused this problem.

> He reported hitting more snags than some of us might expect purely
> from the Python 3 propaganda ("oh, just run the 2to3 utility and it
> does everything for you").

Propaganda?

Are you referring to the official guidelines for migrating from Python 2
to Python 3? The official guide at
<URL:https://docs.python.org/3/howto/pyporting.html> doesn't support
that assertion.

The ‘2to3’ program is presented as a tool to assist. I don't know of
anything official saying “it does everything for you”. Even when it was
first introduced it was only ever presented as a *start* to the porting
effort.

Or are you referring, by “propaganda”, to some unofficial line that
contradicts the official statements of the Python developers?

If someone follows unofficial advice directly contradicting the advice
explicitly given in the Python 3 porting guide, and then feels they “get
screwed by” following that advice, that sounds more like uncritical
flailing.

> The report presented info worth considering for anyone thinking of
> doing a 2-to-3 migration of their own, or maybe even choosing between
> 2 and 3 for a new project. I find reports like that to be valuable
> whether or not they suggest fixes for the snags.

I agree. It points to the need for improvement in areas where
third-party libraries are still lacking.

Which doesn't address the assertion that this is somehow a special
responsibility of “Python 3”, which I asked critical questions about.
Can we expect those claims, still unsupported, to cease?

-- 
 \       “Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything |
  `\                that's even remotely true!” —Homer, _The Simpsons_ |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney