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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #108796 > unrolled thread

Re: Resources/pointers for writing maintable, testable Python

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Resources/pointers for writing maintable, testable Python Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-05-19 10:55 +1000
    Re: Resources/pointers for writing maintable, testable Python Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-18 20:31 -0700
      Re: Resources/pointers for writing maintable, testable Python Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 13:47 +1000
        Re: Resources/pointers for writing maintable, testable Python DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-19 08:56 -0400
      Re: Resources/pointers for writing maintable, testable Python Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-19 13:56 +1000
        Re: Resources/pointers for writing maintable, testable Python Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-18 21:03 -0700

#108796 — Re: Resources/pointers for writing maintable, testable Python

Jacob Scott <jacob.scott@gmail.com> writes:

> Today, I'm happily writing primarily Python (unfortunately, 2.7 -- but I'm
> not sure it makes that much of a difference)

Python 2.7 is still viable, but is certainly a dead end. The difference
increases month by month, and the advantage is only going to increase to
Python 3.

Any new code base should not be written in Python 2. Any libraries you
need which don't work yet on Python 3 should be seriously reconsidered.

> I'd appreciate any pointers to resources I might have missed, general
> thoughts on the topic, etc.

Code Like A Pythonista was written in the Python 2 era
<http://python.net/~goodger/projects/pycon/2007/idiomatic/handout.html>
but is still excellent advice today.

-- 
 \         “I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the |
  `\    best.” —Oscar Wilde, quoted in _Chicago Brothers of the Book_, |
_o__)                                                             1917 |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#108812

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 6:26:26 AM UTC+5:30, Ben Finney wrote:
> Jacob Scott  writes:
> 
> > Today, I'm happily writing primarily Python (unfortunately, 2.7 -- but I'm
> > not sure it makes that much of a difference)
> 
> Python 2.7 is still viable, but is certainly a dead end. The difference
> increases month by month, and the advantage is only going to increase to
> Python 3.
> 
> Any new code base should not be written in Python 2. Any libraries you
> need which don't work yet on Python 3 should be seriously reconsidered.
> 
> > I'd appreciate any pointers to resources I might have missed, general
> > thoughts on the topic, etc.
> 
> Code Like A Pythonista was written in the Python 2 era
> <http://python.net/~goodger/projects/pycon/2007/idiomatic/handout.html>
> but is still excellent advice today.


If <link> is python-2 and still the best excellent advice today
doesn't it go somewhat counter to pyhthon-2 is a dead-end ?? :-) 


Need to point this out since the opposite case to Chris' 
"switch to 3 or else suffer in hell..." needs to be articulated:

Python-3 is nice but 2 is ok. The diffs are not such a big deal

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

#108813

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 6:26:26 AM UTC+5:30, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Code Like A Pythonista was written in the Python 2 era
>> <http://python.net/~goodger/projects/pycon/2007/idiomatic/handout.html>
>> but is still excellent advice today.
>
>
> If <link> is python-2 and still the best excellent advice today
> doesn't it go somewhat counter to pyhthon-2 is a dead-end ?? :-)

Nope. Py2 is a dead end because it isn't moving forward. It's staying
right where it is. There can certainly be advice written about Python
2 that is worth reading, though. In fact, I have some books written
about REXX on OS/2 which I would recommend to someone learning Python
on Linux. I probably have some books from the 1980s that are still
worth reading. (Software books older than that won't be on my shelf,
but quite likely do exist.)

> Need to point this out since the opposite case to Chris'
> "switch to 3 or else suffer in hell..." needs to be articulated:

That is not my stance. Python 2 is still usable - it just isn't moving forward.

> Python-3 is nice but 2 is ok. The diffs are not such a big deal

The differences are getting to be a bigger and bigger deal. I wouldn't
advise anyone to use Python 2.4 unless compatibility with Red Hat
Enterprise Linux 5, because 2.4 misses out on heaps of stuff that
newer versions have. It's the same with 2.7 - use it if compatibility
with systems without 3.x is important, otherwise use the latest. (Of
course, that's new projects. Existing code implies a porting cost,
which has to be factored in; but making the jump to 3.5 or 3.6 is well
worth it IMO.)

ChrisA

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

#108826

On 5/18/2016 11:47 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:

> In fact, I have some books written about REXX on OS/2

You old-head!  I wrote a little bit of REXX code on OS/2 back in the 
early 90s, when I worked at IBM.

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

#108814

On Thursday 19 May 2016 13:31, Rustom Mody wrote:

> On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 6:26:26 AM UTC+5:30, Ben Finney wrote:

>> Code Like A Pythonista was written in the Python 2 era
>> <http://python.net/~goodger/projects/pycon/2007/idiomatic/handout.html>
>> but is still excellent advice today.
> 
> 
> If <link> is python-2 and still the best excellent advice today
> doesn't it go somewhat counter to pyhthon-2 is a dead-end ?? :-)

Ben didn't say that it is the *best* excellent advice.

But even if he did, your conclusion is invalid. I still have books written for 
Python 1.4 and 1.5 that I turn to when I can't remember % targets and regular 
expression codes, and my copy of the Python Cookbook is still full of excellent 
code even though it is written for Python 2.


> Need to point this out since the opposite case to Chris'
> "switch to 3 or else suffer in hell..." needs to be articulated:
> 
> Python-3 is nice but 2 is ok. The diffs are not such a big deal

Python 2 is still an excellent language. It's just not going forward -- no new 
features will be added to it.


-- 
Steve

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

#108815

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 9:26:39 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thursday 19 May 2016 13:31, Rustom Mody wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 6:26:26 AM UTC+5:30, Ben Finney wrote:
> 
> >> Code Like A Pythonista was written in the Python 2 era
> >> <http://python.net/~goodger/projects/pycon/2007/idiomatic/handout.html>
> >> but is still excellent advice today.
> > 
> > 
> > If <link> is python-2 and still the best excellent advice today
> > doesn't it go somewhat counter to pyhthon-2 is a dead-end ?? :-)
> 
> Ben didn't say that it is the *best* excellent advice.
> 
> But even if he did, your conclusion is invalid. I still have books written for 
> Python 1.4 and 1.5 that I turn to when I can't remember % targets and regular 
> expression codes, and my copy of the Python Cookbook is still full of excellent 
> code even though it is written for Python 2.

And you have the knowledge and experience to know that when you refer to
a python 2 (or 1) reference and apply it in 3 and there are minor glitches,
you know where to go for clarifications.

Maybe the OP also knows... maybe not...
No case against python3, just that the pro-3 rhetoric need not be so shrill

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web