Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.007 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.99; '*S*': 0.00; 'frameworks': 0.04; 'instance,': 0.05; 'subject:Python': 0.05; 'resource.': 0.07; 'python': 0.08; 'of)': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'scripts,': 0.09; 'totals': 0.09; 'thanks!': 0.14; 'matplotlib': 0.16; 'newsgroups': 0.16; 'partly': 0.16; 'sign.': 0.16; 'subject:usage': 0.16; 'whole,': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'level,': 0.18; '(which': 0.19; 'thus': 0.21; "aren't": 0.21; 'discussion': 0.22; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.22; '(or': 0.22; 'subject:numbers': 0.23; 'django': 0.25; '(like': 0.26; 'stuff': 0.26; "i'm": 0.28; 'compile': 0.29; 'unicode': 0.29; 'problem': 0.29; 'print': 0.29; 'generally': 0.30; "ain't": 0.30; 'actually': 0.31; "i've": 0.32; 'anyone': 0.32; 'does': 0.32; "isn't": 0.33; 'there': 0.33; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.33; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.34; 'done.': 0.34; 'eric': 0.34; 'framework': 0.34; 'from:addr:yahoo.co.uk': 0.34; 'vs.': 0.34; 'problem.': 0.35; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.35; 'received:org': 0.36; 'but': 0.37; 'stable': 0.38; 'could': 0.38; 'some': 0.38; 'useful': 0.38; 'should': 0.38; 'easier': 0.38; 'etc.)': 0.39; 'that.': 0.39; 'entirely': 0.40; 'change': 0.40; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'easy': 0.60; 'more': 0.61; 'helping': 0.62; 'projects': 0.63; 'categories': 0.64; 'ever': 0.64; 'making': 0.64; 'valuable': 0.65; 'show': 0.66; 'affected.': 0.67; 'wish': 0.68; 'received:89': 0.69; 'regional': 0.73; 'targeted': 0.76; '"big': 0.84; 'received:as13285.net': 0.84; 'discovering': 0.91; 'snow': 0.91; 'exposing': 0.93 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Mark Lawrence Subject: Re: Python usage numbers Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:17:20 +0000 References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host-89-243-192-216.as13285.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120211-1, 11/02/2012), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 47 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1328998635 news.xs4all.nl 6876 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:34302 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:20240 On 11/02/2012 21:02, Eric Snow wrote: > Does anyone have (or know of) accurate totals and percentages on how > Python is used? I'm particularly interested in the following > groupings: > > - new development vs. stable code-bases > - categories (web, scripts, "big data", computation, etc.) > - "bare metal" vs. on top of some framework > - regional usage > > I'm thinking about this partly because of the discussion on > python-ideas about the perceived challenges of Unicode in Python 3. > All the rhetoric, anecdotal evidence, and use-cases there have little > meaning to me, in regards to Python as a whole, without an > understanding of who is actually affected. > > For instance, if frameworks (like django and numpy) could completely > hide the arguable challenges of Unicode in Python 3--and most projects > were built on top of frameworks--then general efforts for making > Unicode easier in Python 3 should go toward helping framework writers. > > Not only are such usage numbers useful for the Unicode discussion > (which I wish would get resolved and die so we could move on to more > interesting stuff :) ). They help us know where efforts could be > focused in general to make Python more powerful and easier to use > where it's already used extensively. They can show us the areas that > Python isn't used much, thus exposing a targeted opportunity to change > that. > > Realistically, it's not entirely feasible to compile such information > at a comprehensive level, but even generally accurate numbers would be > a valuable resource. If the numbers aren't out there, what would some > good approaches to discovering them? Thanks! > > -eric As others have said on other Python newsgroups it ain't a problem. The only time I've ever had a problem was with matplotlib which couldn't print a £ sign. I used a U to enforce unicode job done. If I had a major problem I reckon that a search on c.l.p would give me an answer easy peasy. -- Cheers. Mark Lawrence.