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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #57351 > unrolled thread

Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?

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

Contents

  Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? dufriz@gmail.com - 2013-10-23 04:57 -0700
    Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2013-10-23 23:16 +1100
      Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2013-10-23 12:36 +0000
        Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-10-23 19:46 -0400
        Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2013-10-23 19:54 -0400
    Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-23 13:35 +0100
      Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? "Colin J. Williams" <cjw@ncf.ca> - 2013-10-23 09:05 -0400
        Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> - 2013-10-23 14:13 +0100
          Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? "Colin J. Williams" <cjw@ncf.ca> - 2013-10-24 20:03 -0400
        Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-23 14:27 +0100
          Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2013-10-23 15:04 +0000
          Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-24 00:17 +0000
            Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-24 09:26 +0100
            Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-24 19:31 +1100
        Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Skip Montanaro <skip@pobox.com> - 2013-10-23 08:52 -0500
        Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> - 2013-10-23 15:01 +0100
        Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-23 15:16 +0100
        Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-23 15:21 +0100
        Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Skip Montanaro <skip@pobox.com> - 2013-10-23 09:34 -0500
        Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> - 2013-10-23 15:43 +0100
    Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-23 23:40 +1100
    Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-23 13:52 +0100
    Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-10-23 08:57 -0400
    Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Kevin Walzer <kw@codebykevin.com> - 2013-10-23 11:03 -0400
    Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2013-10-23 13:15 -0700
    Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-24 00:18 +0000
      Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-24 09:18 +0100
    Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-23 21:57 -0700
      Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-24 17:46 +1100
      Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-10-23 23:32 -0700
      Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-24 09:29 +0100
    Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-23 22:12 -0700
      Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-24 06:45 +0000
    Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-24 00:01 -0700
      Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-24 18:09 +1100
    Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> - 2013-10-24 08:30 +0000
    Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-24 19:37 +1100
    Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-24 09:43 +0100
      Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2013-10-24 10:30 +0000
    Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-24 09:45 +0100
    Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-24 01:52 -0700
    Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr> - 2013-10-24 15:29 +0200
      Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? ishish <ishish@domhain.de> - 2013-10-24 14:36 +0100
      Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2013-10-24 13:31 -0400
      Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-10-24 17:00 -0400
    Re: Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-10-24 20:17 -0400

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#57351 — Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?

I am starting to have doubts as to whether Python 3.x will ever be actually adopted by the Python community at large as their standard. Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x. Why am I bothered by this? Because of lot of good libraries are still only for version 2.x, and there is no sign of their being updated for v3.x. I get the impression as if 3.x, despite being better and more advanced than 2.x from the technical point of view, is a bit of a letdown in terms of adoption.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#57353

On 23 October 2013 22:57,  <dufriz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x.

OMG. Please provide their names. We'll send Doug & Dinsdale.

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

#57354

On 2013-10-23, David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 October 2013 22:57,  <dufriz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x.
>
> OMG. Please provide their names. We'll send Doug & Dinsdale.

I can send Mr. Wendt and Mr. Kidd. Or are those guys dead?

-- 
Neil Cerutti

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

#57392

On 23 Oct 2013 12:36:09 GMT, Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> declaimed the
following:

>On 2013-10-23, David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23 October 2013 22:57,  <dufriz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x.
>>
>> OMG. Please provide their names. We'll send Doug & Dinsdale.
>
>I can send Mr. Wendt and Mr. Kidd. Or are those guys dead?

	I could swear one of them is taking part in a smartphone commercial...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slf3GgxqusI
22 seconds in...


	There's always their look-alikes from "Codename: Kids Next Door": Mr.
Wink and Mr. Fibb
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

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

#57397

On Wednesday 23 October 2013 19:53:20 Dennis Lee Bieber did opine:

> On 23 Oct 2013 12:36:09 GMT, Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> declaimed
> the
> 
> following:
> >On 2013-10-23, David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 23 October 2013 22:57,  <dufriz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning
> >>> version 3.x.
> >> 
> >> OMG. Please provide their names. We'll send Doug & Dinsdale.
> >
> >I can send Mr. Wendt and Mr. Kidd. Or are those guys dead?
> 
> 	I could swear one of them is taking part in a smartphone 
commercial...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slf3GgxqusI
> 22 seconds in...
> 
> 
> 	There's always their look-alikes from "Codename: Kids Next Door": 
Mr.
> Wink and Mr. Fibb

Just one more question:  Did Antony and Luigi, from the amiga days, retire?

Cheers, Gene
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Q:	Why did Menachem Begin invade Lebanon?
A:	To impress Jodie Foster.
A pen in the hand of this president is far more
dangerous than 200 million guns in the hands of
         law-abiding citizens.

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

#57355

On 23/10/2013 12:57, dufriz@gmail.com wrote:
> Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered learning version 3.x.

The changes aren't large enough to worry a Python programmer so 
effectively there's nothing to learn, other than how to run 2to3.

> ...there is no sign of their being updated for v3.x.

Could have fooled me.  The number is growing all the time.  The biggest 
problem is likely (IMHO) to be the sheer size of the code base and 
limitations on manpower.

> I get the impression as if 3.x, despite being better and more advanced than 2.x from the technical point of view, is a bit of a letdown in terms of adoption.

I agree with this technical aspect, other than the disastrous flexible 
string representation, which has been repeatedly shot to pieces by, er, 
one idiot :)  As for adaption we'll get there so please don't do a 
Captain Mainwearing[1] and panic.  People should also be pursuaded by 
watching this from Brett Cannon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebyz66jPyJg

Just my 2 pence worth.

[1] From the extremely popular BBC TV series "Dad's Army" of the late 
60s and 70s.

-- 
Python is the second best programming language in the world.
But the best has yet to be invented.  Christian Tismer

Mark Lawrence

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

#57359

On 23/10/2013 8:35 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 23/10/2013 12:57, dufriz@gmail.com wrote:
>> Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not
>> even bothered learning version 3.x.
>
> The changes aren't large enough to worry a Python programmer so
> effectively there's nothing to learn, other than how to run 2to3.
>
>> ...there is no sign of their being updated for v3.x.
>
> Could have fooled me.  The number is growing all the time.  The biggest
> problem is likely (IMHO) to be the sheer size of the code base and
> limitations on manpower.
>
>> I get the impression as if 3.x, despite being better and more advanced
>> than 2.x from the technical point of view, is a bit of a letdown in
>> terms of adoption.
>
> I agree with this technical aspect, other than the disastrous flexible
> string representation, which has been repeatedly shot to pieces by, er,
> one idiot :)  As for adaption we'll get there so please don't do a
> Captain Mainwearing[1] and panic.  People should also be pursuaded by
> watching this from Brett Cannon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebyz66jPyJg
>
> Just my 2 pence worth.
>
> [1] From the extremely popular BBC TV series "Dad's Army" of the late
> 60s and 70s.
>
It would be good if more of the packages were available, for Python 3.3, 
in binary for the Windows user.

I am currently wrestling with Pandas, lxml etc.

Colin W.

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

#57361

On 23/10/2013 14:05, Colin J. Williams wrote:
> On 23/10/2013 8:35 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> On 23/10/2013 12:57, dufriz@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not
>>> even bothered learning version 3.x.
>>
>> The changes aren't large enough to worry a Python programmer so
>> effectively there's nothing to learn, other than how to run 2to3.
>>
>>> ...there is no sign of their being updated for v3.x.
>>
>> Could have fooled me.  The number is growing all the time.  The biggest
>> problem is likely (IMHO) to be the sheer size of the code base and
>> limitations on manpower.
>>
>>> I get the impression as if 3.x, despite being better and more advanced
>>> than 2.x from the technical point of view, is a bit of a letdown in
>>> terms of adoption.
>>
>> I agree with this technical aspect, other than the disastrous flexible
>> string representation, which has been repeatedly shot to pieces by, er,
>> one idiot :)  As for adaption we'll get there so please don't do a
>> Captain Mainwearing[1] and panic.  People should also be pursuaded by
>> watching this from Brett Cannon
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebyz66jPyJg
>>
>> Just my 2 pence worth.
>>
>> [1] From the extremely popular BBC TV series "Dad's Army" of the late
>> 60s and 70s.
>>
> It would be good if more of the packages were available, for Python 3.3,
> in binary for the Windows user.
> 
> I am currently wrestling with Pandas, lxml etc.

Can I assume you're aware of the industrious Christopher Gohlke?

http://www.lfd.uci.edu/~gohlke/pythonlibs/

TJG

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

#57483

On 23/10/2013 9:13 AM, Tim Golden wrote:
> On 23/10/2013 14:05, Colin J. Williams wrote:
>> On 23/10/2013 8:35 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>> On 23/10/2013 12:57, dufriz@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not
>>>> even bothered learning version 3.x.
>>>
>>> The changes aren't large enough to worry a Python programmer so
>>> effectively there's nothing to learn, other than how to run 2to3.
>>>
>>>> ...there is no sign of their being updated for v3.x.
>>>
>>> Could have fooled me.  The number is growing all the time.  The biggest
>>> problem is likely (IMHO) to be the sheer size of the code base and
>>> limitations on manpower.
>>>
>>>> I get the impression as if 3.x, despite being better and more advanced
>>>> than 2.x from the technical point of view, is a bit of a letdown in
>>>> terms of adoption.
>>>
>>> I agree with this technical aspect, other than the disastrous flexible
>>> string representation, which has been repeatedly shot to pieces by, er,
>>> one idiot :)  As for adaption we'll get there so please don't do a
>>> Captain Mainwearing[1] and panic.  People should also be pursuaded by
>>> watching this from Brett Cannon
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebyz66jPyJg
>>>
>>> Just my 2 pence worth.
>>>
>>> [1] From the extremely popular BBC TV series "Dad's Army" of the late
>>> 60s and 70s.
>>>
>> It would be good if more of the packages were available, for Python 3.3,
>> in binary for the Windows user.
>>
>> I am currently wrestling with Pandas, lxml etc.
>
> Can I assume you're aware of the industrious Christopher Gohlke?
>
> http://www.lfd.uci.edu/~gohlke/pythonlibs/
>
> TJG
>
Tim,

Many thanks.  I have installed lxml.  help(lxml) looks good.

I'll keep this link for future use.

It would be good if, after some verification process for each package, 
it could be included in  PyPi.

Colin W.

PS  A problem in building lxml from source is that the build expects 
?Cygwin? and I have Mingw32 installed.

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

#57362

On 23/10/2013 14:13, Tim Golden wrote:
> On 23/10/2013 14:05, Colin J. Williams wrote:
>>>
>> It would be good if more of the packages were available, for Python 3.3,
>> in binary for the Windows user.
>>
>> I am currently wrestling with Pandas, lxml etc.
>
> Can I assume you're aware of the industrious Christopher Gohlke?
>
> http://www.lfd.uci.edu/~gohlke/pythonlibs/
>
> TJG
>

Thankfully I am.  I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure 
having to compile code instead of having a binary install.  To me it's 
like going to the garage to buy a new car, being shown the parts and the 
tool kit and being told to get on with it.  Perhaps it's a case of 
second class treatment for users of a second class OS?  Ducks and runs 
for cover :)

-- 
Python is the second best programming language in the world.
But the best has yet to be invented.  Christian Tismer

Mark Lawrence

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

#57371

On 2013-10-23, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 23/10/2013 14:13, Tim Golden wrote:
>> On 23/10/2013 14:05, Colin J. Williams wrote:
>>>>
>>> It would be good if more of the packages were available, for Python 3.3,
>>> in binary for the Windows user.
>>>
>>> I am currently wrestling with Pandas, lxml etc.
>>
>> Can I assume you're aware of the industrious Christopher Gohlke?
>>
>> http://www.lfd.uci.edu/~gohlke/pythonlibs/
>>
>> TJG
>
> Thankfully I am.  I confess I don't understand how *nix people
> endure having to compile code instead of having a binary
> install.  To me it's like going to the garage to buy a new car,
> being shown the parts and the tool kit and being told to get on
> with it.  Perhaps it's a case of second class treatment for
> users of a second class OS?  Ducks and runs for cover :)

They usually don't. Users of most distributions have an awesome
device called a package manager.

-- 
Neil Cerutti

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

#57394

On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 14:27:29 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote:

> I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure having to compile
> code instead of having a binary install.

Because it's trivially easy under Unix? Three commands:

./configure
make
make install

will generally do the job. Unless it doesn't work, in which case it's a 
world of pain. But that's no different from Windows, except that somebody 
else has already worked through the pain for you.



-- 
Steven

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

#57431

On 24/10/2013 01:17, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 14:27:29 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure having to compile
>> code instead of having a binary install.
>
> Because it's trivially easy under Unix? Three commands:
>
> ./configure
> make
> make install
>
> will generally do the job. Unless it doesn't work, in which case it's a
> world of pain. But that's no different from Windows, except that somebody
> else has already worked through the pain for you.
>

Precisely my point.  I suspect being a Python core dev must do wonders 
for the moral fibre.  Your pristine, fully reviewed patch improves 
performance by 10,000% and works wonderfully except on buildbot xyz and 
has to be reverted.  How do they do it?

-- 
Python is the second best programming language in the world.
But the best has yet to be invented.  Christian Tismer

Mark Lawrence

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

#57434

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Precisely my point.  I suspect being a Python core dev must do wonders for
> the moral fibre.  Your pristine, fully reviewed patch improves performance
> by 10,000% and works wonderfully except on buildbot xyz and has to be
> reverted.  How do they do it?

It's called Diplomacy, and it's a class skill for bards, clerics,
druids, monks, paladins, rogues, and core developers.

ChrisA

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

#57363

> Thankfully I am.  I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure having
> to compile code instead of having a binary install.  To me it's like going
> to the garage to buy a new car, being shown the parts and the tool kit and
> being told to get on with it.  Perhaps it's a case of second class treatment
> for users of a second class OS?  Ducks and runs for cover :)

And we can't understand how you can put up without source. :-) Also,
Unix isn't one platform like Windows, ABI incompatibility and all.

Really, for most things these days it's just

    pip install foo

Skip

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

#57364

On 23/10/2013 14:52, Skip Montanaro wrote:
>> Thankfully I am.  I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure having
>> to compile code instead of having a binary install.  To me it's like going
>> to the garage to buy a new car, being shown the parts and the tool kit and
>> being told to get on with it.  Perhaps it's a case of second class treatment
>> for users of a second class OS?  Ducks and runs for cover :)
> 
> And we can't understand how you can put up without source. :-) Also,
> Unix isn't one platform like Windows, ABI incompatibility and all.
> 
> Really, for most things these days it's just
> 
>     pip install foo

Disregarding Mark's tongue-in-cheek rhetoric for now... perhaps you
didn't realise that, on Windows, you can't pip install a binary (that's
a problem the new wheel format is solving). And, even if you have the
correct compiler toolchain, building more complex packages from source
can be daunting, essentially because of the lack of standard source
layout on Windows.

TJG

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

#57365

On 23/10/2013 14:52, Skip Montanaro wrote:
>> Thankfully I am.  I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure having
>> to compile code instead of having a binary install.  To me it's like going
>> to the garage to buy a new car, being shown the parts and the tool kit and
>> being told to get on with it.  Perhaps it's a case of second class treatment
>> for users of a second class OS?  Ducks and runs for cover :)
>
> And we can't understand how you can put up without source. :-) Also,
> Unix isn't one platform like Windows, ABI incompatibility and all.
>
> Really, for most things these days it's just
>
>      pip install foo
>
> Skip
>

Which on Windows often ends up telling you that it can't find 
vcvarsall.bat, i.e. you don't have the appropriate version (if any) of 
the compiler installed.  You then realise your mistake, go to the 
bookmarked link Tim Golden referred to earlier, and a minute or two 
later job done.

-- 
Python is the second best programming language in the world.
But the best has yet to be invented.  Christian Tismer

Mark Lawrence

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

#57367

On 23/10/2013 15:01, Tim Golden wrote:
> On 23/10/2013 14:52, Skip Montanaro wrote:
>>> Thankfully I am.  I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure having
>>> to compile code instead of having a binary install.  To me it's like going
>>> to the garage to buy a new car, being shown the parts and the tool kit and
>>> being told to get on with it.  Perhaps it's a case of second class treatment
>>> for users of a second class OS?  Ducks and runs for cover :)
>>
>> And we can't understand how you can put up without source. :-) Also,
>> Unix isn't one platform like Windows, ABI incompatibility and all.
>>
>> Really, for most things these days it's just
>>
>>      pip install foo
>
> Disregarding Mark's tongue-in-cheek rhetoric for now...

Never :)

perhaps you
> didn't realise that, on Windows, you can't pip install a binary (that's
> a problem the new wheel format is solving). And, even if you have the
> correct compiler toolchain, building more complex packages from source
> can be daunting, essentially because of the lack of standard source
> layout on Windows.
>
> TJG
>

Thanks for the heads up.  I didn't realise that wheel solved this 
problem.  From my viewpoint thats the bee's knees.

-- 
Python is the second best programming language in the world.
But the best has yet to be invented.  Christian Tismer

Mark Lawrence

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

#57368

Tim:

> Disregarding Mark's tongue-in-cheek rhetoric for now... perhaps you
> didn't realise that, on Windows, you can't pip install a binary

Mark:

> Which on Windows often ends up telling you that it can't find vcvarsall.bat

I am well aware that Windows users rarely have compilers available.
Perhaps neither of you realized that I was responding to Mark's
comment that, "I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure
having to compile code instead of having a binary install."

On Unix systems most of the time people never invoke a compiler
directly to install from source. Heck, they often don't need to
download directly, as "pip install <whatever>" takes care of all that
drudgery.

Skip

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

#57369

On 23/10/2013 15:34, Skip Montanaro wrote:
> Tim:
> 
>> Disregarding Mark's tongue-in-cheek rhetoric for now... perhaps you
>> didn't realise that, on Windows, you can't pip install a binary
> 
> Mark:
> 
>> Which on Windows often ends up telling you that it can't find vcvarsall.bat
> 
> I am well aware that Windows users rarely have compilers available.
> Perhaps neither of you realized that I was responding to Mark's
> comment that, "I confess I don't understand how *nix people endure
> having to compile code instead of having a binary install."
> 
> On Unix systems most of the time people never invoke a compiler
> directly to install from source. Heck, they often don't need to
> download directly, as "pip install <whatever>" takes care of all that
> drudgery.

Fair enough -- I thought you were implying that pip install had
magically solved all problems of source or binary installation. Clearly
you weren't, so my points about the problems still faced on Windows are
rather moot. :)

TJG

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web