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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #101592 > unrolled thread

Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code

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

Contents

  Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-01-13 18:30 +1100
    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code sjmsoft@gmail.com - 2016-01-13 06:21 -0800
      Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-01-13 11:25 -0500
        Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-01-14 11:10 +1100
          Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 22:40 -0200
            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-01-14 12:02 +1100
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 18:24 -0700
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-13 21:39 -0500
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2016-01-13 21:59 -0500
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-14 07:41 -0500
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2016-01-14 14:43 +0100
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@VybeNetworks.com> - 2016-01-14 08:47 -0500
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2016-01-14 16:32 +0100
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@VybeNetworks.com> - 2016-01-14 10:47 -0500
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2016-01-14 17:52 +0100
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-01-15 16:08 +1300
                Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 15:56 +1100
                  Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-01-16 10:02 +1300
                Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 09:40 -0200
            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Robin Koch <robin.koch@t-online.de> - 2016-01-15 19:29 +0100
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 16:43 -0200
          Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-01-13 19:53 -0500
          Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 17:02 -0800
            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 12:29 +1100
            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 19:11 -0700
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 18:51 -0800
                Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 14:08 +1100
                  Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 19:29 -0800
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 22:18 -0700
                      Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 07:30 -0800
                        Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 04:41 +1100
                          Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 10:40 -0800
                            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code <paul.hermeneutic@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 13:16 -0700
                        Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-01-15 09:04 +1100
                          Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 15:16 -0800
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-01-14 19:16 +1100
                      Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 01:37 -0800
            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-01-14 00:45 -0500
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 07:52 -0800
                Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 15:52 -0700
                  Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 15:55 -0800
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> - 2016-01-15 06:52 -0800
                      Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-01-16 09:49 +1300
                        Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 14:34 -0800
                      Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 13:45 -0800
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> - 2016-01-15 12:02 -0500
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 16:09 -0200
                      Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-01-15 18:46 +0000
                        Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 16:55 -0200
                          Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-01-16 14:41 +0000
                            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 12:48 -0200
                            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code paul.hermeneutic@gmail.com - 2016-01-16 09:08 -0700
                            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> - 2016-01-16 13:00 -0500
                            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 12:26 -0700
                            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 13:43 +1100
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> - 2016-01-15 13:49 -0500
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 16:53 -0200
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-15 20:58 +0000
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-01-15 14:09 -0800
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-01-16 20:51 -0800
      Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 03:38 +1100
    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-01-14 10:38 +1300
      Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 19:46 -0200
    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-01-14 01:02 +0000
      Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 12:21 +1100
        Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-01-14 01:49 +0000

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#101773

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Robin Koch <robin.koch@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> Not necessarily.
> See TeX. :-)
>

GvR does not like even an elegant 3.10 and you are implying that we
are going to converge to something? LOL.



-- 
Bernardo Sulzbach

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

#101650

On 1/13/2016 7:10 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 03:25 am, Random832 wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016, at 09:21, sjmsoft@gmail.com wrote:
>>> This strikes me as very good advice.  Thanks for being so far-sighted.
>>> And let's hope that Python 4 has fewer incompatibilities (none would
>>> good) than Python 3!
>>
>> Who says there's going to be a Python 4? I always assumed 3.9 would be
>> followed by 3.10.
>
>
> Guido has a *very* strong dislike for two digit minor version numbers. It
> took a fair amount of arm-twisting to get him to accept two digit micro
> version numbers, like 2.7.10. It is doubtful that we'll see 3.10.
>
> But he has definitely ruled that 4.0 (assuming there is one) will not be a
> major backwards-incompatible version like 3.0 was.
>
> That's not to say that there won't be any backwards incompatibilities at
> all, but they will be relatively minor, like the change from 2.5 to 2.6. (I
> bet most people don't even know that 2.6 broke backwards-compatibility.)

There are a number of deprecations that will not be turned into removals 
while 2.7 remains on support but which probably will be removed after, 
and after they have been giving DeprecationWarnings for at least 2 3.x 
releases.  So code that does not have deprecated features will not be 
affected.

This should be after 3.8.  If removals happen in a release that would be 
'3.9', I expect that it would be '4.0' instead.  (But there is no 
definite plan and will not be until the time comes.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

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

#101653

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 6:11:06 PM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> But [GvR] has definitely ruled that 4.0 (assuming there is
> one) will not be a major backwards-incompatible version
> like 3.0 was.

Well for the sake of Python's future, let's all hope so!

I typically don't give much weight to the statements of
sycophants, but i really do hope your assessment of GvR's
intentions is correct, because it would indicate that "old
hubris" has *FINALLY* come to realize what many of us
feared all along -- that Python3 was going to do more damage
than good!

In fact, in the years before Python3 arrived, it had enjoyed
a steady ascension from obscurity into mainstream hacker
culture, but now, all that remains is a fractured community,
a fractured code base, and a leader who lost his cushy job
at Google -- of which i think Python3 is directly
responsible. Think about it: if they hired him *BECAUSE* of
Python's success then we can *ONLY* conclude they fired him
for mismanaging it.

Folks, our future is in peril, but one thing is guaranteed,
if the introduction of Python4 is *anything* like the
introduction of Python3, well, then, it's curtains for
Python. *CURTAINS*!!!

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

#101657

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> In fact, in the years before Python3 arrived, it had enjoyed
> a steady ascension from obscurity into mainstream hacker
> culture, but now, all that remains is a fractured community,
> a fractured code base, and a leader who lost his cushy job
> at Google -- of which i think Python3 is directly
> responsible. Think about it: if they hired him *BECAUSE* of
> Python's success then we can *ONLY* conclude they fired him
> for mismanaging it.
>

I got hired by my last boss because he wanted some software written.
I'm no longer employed there. Think about it: if he hired me *BECAUSE*
of software's success, we can ONLY conclude that I mismanaged the very
concept of software. Watch out, folks; software is about to become the
next dead thing!

ChrisA

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

#101659

On 01/13/2016 06:02 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> In fact, in the years before Python3 arrived, it had enjoyed
> a steady ascension from obscurity into mainstream hacker
> culture, but now, all that remains is a fractured community,
> a fractured code base, and a leader who lost his cushy job
> at Google -- of which i think Python3 is directly
> responsible. Think about it: if they hired him *BECAUSE* of
> Python's success then we can *ONLY* conclude they fired him
> for mismanaging it.

Hmm, so Guido moved to Dropbox because Google fired him?  Interesting
revisionist history there.  I can find zero evidence to support your
assertion, so we can *ONLY* conclude that you are making stuff up.
Dishonesty is a harsh accusation, but when one makes up stuff to support
one's argument, is that not lying?

Besides that, people leave good jobs all the time for other more
challenging jobs.  Who says it was cushy?  Cushy because Google paid him
to work on Python?  Sounds like the move to Dropbox suited him just fine
and he and Python are both doing well. I'm sure there were contributing
factors to his decision to leave Google, like Google's NIH syndrome
(golang, dart, etc).  Things happen.

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

#101662

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:11:40 PM UTC-6, Michael Torrie wrote:
> Hmm, so Guido moved to Dropbox because Google fired him?
> [...] I can find zero evidence to support your assertion,

Feel free to post evidence that will *DISPROVE* my statement.

> Dishonesty is a harsh accusation, but when one makes up
> stuff to support one's argument, is that not lying?

You cannot accuse me of lying until you provide *PROOF* that
i am lying. But even if you offered proof, that GvR was not
fired because of Python's downward spiral, your implication
that an "assertion" is "a lie" is in itself dishonest
(yes?). And your interpretation of my statement "as
malicious" does speak volumes to your true feelings on the
subject. Why do you feel *SO* compelled to speak on behalf
of GvR? And furthermore, what gives you the right to speak on
his behalf?

> Besides that, people leave good jobs all the time for
> other more challenging jobs. Who says it was cushy?  Cushy
> because Google paid him to work on Python?

Getting paid to work on Pyhton 20% of the time is a pretty
damn cushy job Micheal! How much time does *YOUR* employer
pay *YOU* to work on "side projects"?

> Sounds like the move to Dropbox suited him just fine

Sounds like conjecture to me. What evidence do you have that
will support your position? I provided the evidence that
lead me to my conclusion, sure, you may not agree, but at
least i provided more than just denial.

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

#101664

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:11:40 PM UTC-6, Michael Torrie wrote:
>> Hmm, so Guido moved to Dropbox because Google fired him?
>> [...] I can find zero evidence to support your assertion,
>
> Feel free to post evidence that will *DISPROVE* my statement.
>
>> Dishonesty is a harsh accusation, but when one makes up
>> stuff to support one's argument, is that not lying?
>
> You cannot accuse me of lying until you provide *PROOF* that
> i am lying.

That's not how it goes. You provided assertions; you should provide at
least some sort of supporting evidence.

> But even if you offered proof, that GvR was not
> fired because of Python's downward spiral, your implication
> that an "assertion" is "a lie" is in itself dishonest
> (yes?). And your interpretation of my statement "as
> malicious" does speak volumes to your true feelings on the
> subject. Why do you feel *SO* compelled to speak on behalf
> of GvR? And furthermore, what gives you the right to speak on
> his behalf?

You're talking about a very serious matter between two legal entities
- if someone was *fired* because of social, technological, or other
problems with Python, that has implications that could matter in a
court of law. So I put it right back to you: What gives you the right
to speak against Guido and Google?

>> Besides that, people leave good jobs all the time for
>> other more challenging jobs. Who says it was cushy?  Cushy
>> because Google paid him to work on Python?
>
> Getting paid to work on Pyhton 20% of the time is a pretty
> damn cushy job Micheal! How much time does *YOUR* employer
> pay *YOU* to work on "side projects"?

It's hardly a side project if it's creating something of immense value
to the company. And Google is still getting immense value from Python
even now that they're not paying Guido's salary.

And Michael's right: people move around for all sorts of reasons.
Doesn't necessarily mean anything about the previous job.

ChrisA

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

#101665

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 9:08:40 PM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
> You're talking about a very serious matter between two legal entities
> - if someone was *fired* because of social, technological, or other
> problems with Python, that has implications that could matter in a
> court of law. So I put it right back to you: What gives you the right
> to speak against Guido and Google?

I'm not speaking *AGAINST* anyone, i'm merely trying to
understand what happened. And unless there was some sort of
explicit contract, Google could fire *ANYONE* for *ANY*
reason -- this is not France, Chris!

> And Michael's right: people move around for all sorts of reasons.
> Doesn't necessarily mean anything about the previous job.

Of course. But when you leave things open for speculation,
you enviably create a situation where rumors can start
circulating. GvR is not just any "John Doe" engineer, no,
he's the head of an open source community, and the community
has a right to be concerned about the livelihood and well
being of their leader.

Not because we need something to gossip about whilst
watching reruns of Monty Python, but because we need to know
if Python is going to be viable into the foreseeable future.
More specifically, we need to know if we're writing code in
a language that is heading back to the obscurity from wench
it came. We have a *RIGHT* to be worried Chris, because our
livelihoods are directly dependent on Python.

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

#101666

On 01/13/2016 08:29 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Of course. But when you leave things open for speculation,
> you enviably create a situation where rumors can start
> circulating. GvR is not just any "John Doe" engineer, no,
> he's the head of an open source community, and the community
> has a right to be concerned about the livelihood and well
> being of their leader.

The only one speculating is you.  Everything I've read points to this
idea of yours about GvR and Google being untrue.  You have presented no
evidence for your accusation, so given the evidence I have seen that
contradicts you, I must conclude that you made it. That's the part I
take issue with and why I stopped to feed the troll, much to the chagrin
of everyone else.

> We have a *RIGHT* to be worried Chris, because our livelihoods are
> directly dependent on Python.

I don't know who the "we" you're talking about is, but if your
livelihood depends on Python's existence and development in a certain
direction, then I suggest you hire GvR--that's what Dropbox did and they
don't seem too worried about Python's future.  Python's doing just fine,
but you should be able to adapt to any programming language suitable for
your job at hand.

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

#101696

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 11:19:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Torrie wrote:

> The only one speculating is you.  Everything I've read points to this
> idea of yours about GvR and Google being untrue.  

Providing speculation is not the same as providing facts.
Please provide facts. And enumerate them!

> You have presented no evidence for your accusation, so
> given the evidence I have seen that contradicts you, I
> must conclude that you made it [up]. 

Here is an enumerated list of the indisputable facts of this
case:

  (1) GvR is no longer employed by Google (FACT!)
  
  (2) Before Python3 came along, the Python community was
  vibrant and growing (FACT!)
  
  (3) After Python3 came along, the Python community has
  become fractured, and the Python code base has become
  fractured, and the general public consensus is that Python
  is on its way to extinction (FACT!)

Of course these are not *ALL* the facts, but they are *ALL*
the facts that publicly available. If you (and your hero
GvR) want to prevent rumors from circulation, them i
suggest you provide the relevant facts regarding his change
of employment, and simply throwing opinions out that "the
change suited him well" is not providing any facts.

> I don't know who the "we" you're talking about is, 

I represent the concerns of entire class of Python community
members, folks who are fearful to speak out publicly for
fear of reprisals (which is a legitimate fear).

> but if your livelihood depends on Python's existence and
> development in a certain direction, then [...] you should
> be able to adapt to any programming language suitable for
> your job at hand.

Both myself, and the people i represent, write code in
*MANY* languages, but to suggest that we should just """be
quiet and translate millions of lines of code into another
language because our "dear leader" decided to break
backwards compatibility for arbitrary reasons"""... is a
quite impractical, don't you think?

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

#101704

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
>   (3) After Python3 came along, the Python community has
>   become fractured, and the Python code base has become
>   fractured, and the general public consensus is that Python
>   is on its way to extinction (FACT!)

Prove this. Find "general public consensus" that Python is dead. And
then, imitate rats and abandon this sinking ship.

I decided to give 3D modelling a go, after watching some amazing work
done on Twitch.tv. A lot of people recommend Maya, but I'd rather use
GPL software than proprietary (particularly when the latter has a
thousands-of-dollars price tag), so I grabbed Blender. Anyone want to
hazard a guess as to the language Blender uses for scripting,
expression evaluation, and so on?

ChrisA

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

#101707

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 11:41:21 AM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Prove this. Find "general public consensus" that Python is
> dead. And then, imitate rats and abandon this sinking
> ship.

I don't need to "imitate" anything, it has already begun.

> I decided to give 3D modelling a go, after watching some
> amazing work done on Twitch.tv. A lot of people recommend
> Maya, but I'd rather use GPL software than proprietary
> (particularly when the latter has a thousands-of-dollars
> price tag), so I grabbed Blender. Anyone want to hazard a
> guess as to the language Blender uses for scripting,
> expression evaluation, and so on?

Blender is a nice freeware modeling program, and is great
for organic modeling, animations, photo realistic rendering,
game creation, and yes, exposes a Pyhton API -- but what is
your point? The Python scripting features have been a part
of Blender for many years, back when Python3 was just a
"innocent mis-folded programming protein" rotting holes in
the BDFL's pre-frontal cortex. The existence of Python3 in
the wild, is merely evidence that the original PrP has
replicated exponentially.

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

#101709

I am confident that in a few years there will be sufficient new
developments in language design that some degree of backward compatibility
would be worth dropping in order to provide greater capabilities. If it
needs to fork and become another language, that's OK.

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

#101720

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 02:30 am, Rick Johnson wrote:

> I represent 

Absolutely nobody except yourself.

The entertainment value of your trolling has now dipped below the annoyance
value. Into the sin-bin you go for another three months. Enjoy your time in
the kill-file.




-- 
Steven

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

#101724

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Into the sin-bin you go for another three months. Enjoy your time in
> the kill-file.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuDEP6eFkeA

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

#101676

On Thursday 14 January 2016 14:29, Rick Johnson wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 9:08:40 PM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> You're talking about a very serious matter between two legal entities
>> - if someone was *fired* because of social, technological, or other
>> problems with Python, that has implications that could matter in a
>> court of law. So I put it right back to you: What gives you the right
>> to speak against Guido and Google?
> 
> I'm not speaking *AGAINST* anyone, i'm merely trying to
> understand what happened. And unless there was some sort of
> explicit contract, Google could fire *ANYONE* for *ANY*
> reason -- this is not France, Chris!

There's no reason to think that Guido was fired. He announced that he was 
leaving Google to go work for Dropbox -- that sounds to me that he was given 
a better offer, or perhaps he no longer cared for the toxic work environment 
which is Google. He wasn't fired, he was poached:

http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/07/dropbox-guido-van-rossum-python/


>> And Michael's right: people move around for all sorts of reasons.
>> Doesn't necessarily mean anything about the previous job.
> 
> Of course. But when you leave things open for speculation,
> you enviably create a situation where rumors can start
> circulating.

You're the only one trying to circulate rumours about Guido and Google -- 
and it's old news too, he's been working at Dropbox since Dec 2012:

https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2012/12/welcome-guido/

[...]
> We have a *RIGHT* to be worried Chris, because our
> livelihoods are directly dependent on Python.

You will be pleased to know that Dropbox are 100% behind Python 3, and 
spending a lot of time and money on bringing optional static typing to 
Python 2 and 3 in order to simplify the migration.



-- 
Steve

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

#101678

Python 3 is not Unicode.org compliant.
Python 3 is not even presenting a correct text model.
However, it is a very nice toy.

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

#101667

On 1/13/2016 8:02 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> and a leader who lost his cushy job at Google

Unless you have access to facts that I do not, 'lost' is impolite 
speculation. But lets move on.

I have a contrary hypothesis based on the facts quoted below.  As far as 
I know, Google is somewhat stuck on 2.7.  Dropbox, on the other, is 
migrating to modern 3.x Python (see below).  Guido wants the world to do 
this, so he moved to a company where he can help make this practical, by 
helping to work out some of the practical details of how to do so, and 
then share them with the rest of the Python community.

On Jan 8, 6 days ago, Guido posted on python-idea "Proposal to extend 
PEP 484 (gradual typing) to support Python 2.7"

"At Dropbox we're trying to be good citizens and we're working towards 
introducing gradual typing (PEP 484) into our Python code bases (several 
million lines of code). However, that code base is mostly still Python 
2.7 and we believe that we should introduce gradual typing first and 
start working on conversion to Python 3 second (since having static 
types in the code can help a big refactoring like that).

Since Python 2 doesn't support function annotations we've had to look 
for alternatives. We considered stub files, a magic codec, docstrings, 
and additional `# type:` comments. In the end we decided that `# type:` 
comments are the most robust approach. We've experimented a fair amount 
with this and we have a proposal for a standard."

A few days later, in the absence of objection to the proposed comment 
syntax, he added the proposal.  Not mentioned in the quote is that mypy 
will support the new comments for static analysis.  2.x interpreters 
will happily ignore then.

If Dropbox comment-annotates a public 2.x package, it can contribute the 
work back for the use of others.  Google, on the other hand, decided to 
support annotation in 2.7 creating a custom 2.7 interpreter than will 
ignore them.  Any code annotated by Google will be useless on standard 
interpreters without being run through a converter.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

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

#101699

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 11:46:30 PM UTC-6, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 1/13/2016 8:02 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> > and a leader who lost his cushy job at Google
> 
> Unless you have access to facts that I do not, 'lost' is
> impolite speculation. But lets move on.

Well i admit my speculation may be leading to an
undesirable conclusion, but i can *ONLY* speculate
utilizing the facts that are publicly available to me. If
we want to prevent rumors, then we need to ensure that *ALL
THE FACTS* are available for review.

> I have a contrary hypothesis based on the facts quoted
> below.  As far as I know, Google is somewhat stuck on 2.7.

So you're suggesting that GvR *WILLINGLY* left a global, and
well established giant, to work for a tiny start-up because
his bosses refused to switch from Python2 to (his new baby)
Pyhton3?

So, let me get this strait: he wasn't fired, *HE QUIT*???

I wonder if he's considered the possibility that Google may
swoop in an purchase Dropbox at some time in the near
future, and he could find himself working for google once
again. And you know what would be the ultimate form of
irony, if they forced him to migrate Dropbox *BACK* to
Python2! And here is the sign that they will post on his new
office door:

  AND YOU WILL *KNOW* THAT GOOGLE IS THE *LORD*, WHEN WE
  TRANSFORM YOU FROM A PETULANT LITTLE ENGINEER, INTO AN
  OBEDIENT LITTLE CODE MONKEY!

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

#101723

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> So you're suggesting that GvR *WILLINGLY* left a global, and
> well established giant, to work for a tiny start-up because
> his bosses refused to switch from Python2 to (his new baby)
> Pyhton3?
>
> So, let me get this strait: he wasn't fired, *HE QUIT*???

It's even still plausible if you just cut everything after the
"because" from that first sentence. People leave large companies like
Google to go work at start-ups where they believe they'll be able to
have more impact all the time.

It's certainly much more likely than your speculation that he was
fired because of Python 3. Google isn't in the habit of firing
talented engineers for idiotically trivial reasons so they can be
scooped up by the competition.

> I wonder if he's considered the possibility that Google may
> swoop in an purchase Dropbox at some time in the near
> future, and he could find himself working for google once
> again.

Google already has a cloud storage service.

> And you know what would be the ultimate form of
> irony, if they forced him to migrate Dropbox *BACK* to
> Python2!

What a ridiculous waste of programmer time that would be.

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web