Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #63381 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-01-07 11:19 +1100 |
| Last post | 2014-01-08 14:15 +0000 |
| Articles | 15 on this page of 95 — 23 participants |
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.
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-07 11:19 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com> - 2014-01-07 13:54 +0100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com> - 2014-01-07 17:07 +0100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com> - 2014-01-07 17:42 +0100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-08 04:00 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com> - 2014-01-08 13:36 +0100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-08 23:46 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com> - 2014-01-08 16:08 +0100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-01-09 00:01 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-08 14:08 +0000
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com> - 2014-01-08 16:22 +0100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-09 02:39 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-08 15:50 +0000
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-01-09 08:55 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-08 09:15 -0500
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-08 14:30 +0000
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com> - 2014-01-08 16:26 +0100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Kevin Walzer <kw@codebykevin.com> - 2014-01-08 18:42 -0500
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-08 20:27 -0500
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-09 12:47 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-08 21:25 -0500
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-09 14:17 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-08 22:35 -0500
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-09 15:03 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-08 23:29 -0500
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-09 15:34 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-09 15:38 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2014-01-08 21:31 -0800
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-09 17:34 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-01-09 17:57 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-09 18:56 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-09 09:14 -0500
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-10 01:57 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-09 08:21 -0800
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-09 16:30 +0000
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-09 09:07 -0800
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-09 18:20 +0000
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2014-01-09 10:29 -0800
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> - 2014-01-09 16:41 +0000
RE: the Gravity of Python 2 Nick Cash <nick.cash@npcinternational.com> - 2014-01-09 16:42 +0000
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-09 16:50 +0000
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-10 07:35 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-09 12:54 -0800
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-10 08:12 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2014-01-09 15:01 +0000
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-10 02:17 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2014-01-09 07:56 -0800
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Kushal Kumaran <kushal.kumaran@gmail.com> - 2014-01-09 11:36 +0530
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-09 08:53 +0000
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-01-09 20:03 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Kushal Kumaran <kushal.kumaran@gmail.com> - 2014-01-09 14:51 +0530
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Piet van Oostrum <piet@vanoostrum.org> - 2014-01-09 12:26 +0100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-09 09:51 +0000
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-01-10 00:35 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-09 09:32 -0500
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-01-09 14:34 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-08 22:44 -0500
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-09 14:42 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Piet van Oostrum <piet@vanoostrum.org> - 2014-01-09 15:06 +0100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-10 01:34 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-09 09:44 -0500
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Piet van Oostrum <piet@vanoostrum.org> - 2014-01-09 17:51 +0100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-10 07:43 +1100
Time zones and why they change so damned often (was: the Gravity of Python 2) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-01-09 14:54 +1100
Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often (was: the Gravity of Python 2) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-09 15:14 +1100
Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often (was: the Gravity of Python 2) Peter Pearson <ppearson@nowhere.invalid> - 2014-01-10 18:22 +0000
Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2014-01-10 18:48 +0000
Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-10 18:53 +0000
Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-01-10 19:55 +0000
Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-01-10 19:45 -0500
Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2014-01-10 21:53 -0500
Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often (was: the Gravity of Python 2) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-01-10 19:43 -0500
Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often (was: the Gravity of Python 2) Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-10 19:49 -0500
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-09 07:10 +0000
Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-09 07:17 +0000
Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-01-09 12:07 +0000
Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2014-01-10 07:31 +0000
Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-01-10 09:04 +0000
Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2014-01-11 07:52 +0000
Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-01-11 11:10 +0000
Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-01-11 11:14 +0000
Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-01-11 11:14 +0000
Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often (was: the Gravity
of Python 2) Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2014-01-09 10:34 -0500
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2014-01-08 17:52 -0800
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-09 13:09 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-09 08:42 +0000
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2014-01-09 08:01 -0800
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-09 18:18 +0000
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2014-01-09 10:33 -0800
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com> - 2014-01-08 15:45 +0100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-09 01:50 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-01-08 15:06 +0000
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-09 02:31 +1100
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-01-08 15:45 -0500
Re: the Gravity of Python 2 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-08 14:15 +0000
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-11 11:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often |
| Message-ID | <GI9Au.30315$B86.3841@fx05.am4> |
| In reply to | #63699 |
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 11:10:41 +0000, Alister wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 07:52:36 +0000, Bob Martin wrote: >>>>>we dont have "Daylight saving time" we switch between GMT (Greenwich >>>>>Mean Time) and BST (British Summer Time) at some point in the past we >>>>>have also used DST (Double Summer Time). >>>> >>>> British Summer Time *is* Daylight Saving Time. >>> >>>My point is in the UK we have never refered to it as Daylight saving >>>Time that is an Americanism :-) >> >> Sorry, but you are wrong again! >> Just Google it. > > Wikipedia > > Daylight saving time (DST)—usually referred to as Summer Time in the > United Kingdom > > I had never heard the term daylight savings untill windows added it as a > tick box. or a more Authoritave souce https://www.gov.uk/when-do-the-clocks-change The period when the clocks are 1 hour ahead is called British Summer Time (BST). -- The earth is like a tiny grain of sand, only much, much heavier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-11 11:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often |
| Message-ID | <cI9Au.1086$aD5.117@fx04.am4> |
| In reply to | #63699 |
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 11:10:41 +0000, Alister wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 07:52:36 +0000, Bob Martin wrote: >>>>>we dont have "Daylight saving time" we switch between GMT (Greenwich >>>>>Mean Time) and BST (British Summer Time) at some point in the past we >>>>>have also used DST (Double Summer Time). >>>> >>>> British Summer Time *is* Daylight Saving Time. >>> >>>My point is in the UK we have never refered to it as Daylight saving >>>Time that is an Americanism :-) >> >> Sorry, but you are wrong again! >> Just Google it. > > Wikipedia > > Daylight saving time (DST)—usually referred to as Summer Time in the > United Kingdom > > I had never heard the term daylight savings untill windows added it as a > tick box. or a more Authoritave souce https://www.gov.uk/when-do-the-clocks-change The period when the clocks are 1 hour ahead is called British Summer Time (BST). -- The earth is like a tiny grain of sand, only much, much heavier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-09 10:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Time zones and why they change so damned often (was: the Gravity of Python 2) |
| Message-ID | <mailman.5265.1389281540.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #63556 |
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:14:55 +1100, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: > [1] For those who aren't right up on timezone trivia, AZ has no DST. > Similarly the Australian state of Queensland does not shift its > clocks. And Indiana. -- DaveA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-08 17:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.5224.1389232321.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #63550 |
On 01/08/2014 05:27 PM, Roy Smith wrote: > In article <laknps$umv$1@dont-email.me>, > Kevin Walzer <kw@codebykevin.com> wrote: > >> I haven't updated my Python apps to 3.x because there's nothing in 3.x >> that offers benefits to my users. > > I almost found a reason to move to Python 3 today. Then I got smacked. [snip] > Naive datetimes are what everybody uses. It's what utcnow() gives you. > So why make life difficult for everybody? Python 3 didn't win a convert > today. Naive datetimes suffer from the same problem as the old str/unicode problems: as soon as you try to mix different timezone datetimes that are naive, you have a mess (temporal-bake, anyone?). -- ~Ethan~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-09 13:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.5225.1389233375.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #63550 |
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > as soon as you try to mix different timezone datetimes that are naive, you > have a mess (temporal-bake, anyone?). Doctor Who gets into cookies? ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-09 08:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.5246.1389257010.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #63550 |
On 09/01/2014 01:27, Roy Smith wrote: > In article <laknps$umv$1@dont-email.me>, > Kevin Walzer <kw@codebykevin.com> wrote: > >> I haven't updated my Python apps to 3.x because there's nothing in 3.x >> that offers benefits to my users. > > I almost found a reason to move to Python 3 today. Then I got smacked. > > I had a datetime. I needed a unix timestamp. People need to go back > and forth between these two things all the time and in Python 2 it's the > very definition of impedance mismatch. What should be a dead simple > operation involves long threads on stackoverflow discussing which of > several amalgamations of duct tape is the least ugly. > > Anyway, I discovered that Python 3.3's datetime has a .timestamp() > method. Yeah. Finally. Exactly what the world had needed for years. > Then I kept reading and found: > > Note: There is no method to obtain the POSIX timestamp directly from a > naive datetime instance representing UTC time. > > Ugh. So, we're back to square one. They go on to suggest one of two > workarounds, either calling datetime.replace() to insert a timezone, or > subtracting from the epoch manually. > > Naive datetimes are what everybody uses. It's what utcnow() gives you. > So why make life difficult for everybody? Python 3 didn't win a convert > today. > Yep, dates and times are easy. That's why there are 17 issues open on the bug tracker referencing tzinfo alone. Poor old 1100942 is high priority, was created 12/01/2005 and has missed 3.4. So if it gets into 3.5 it'll have already celebrated its 10th birthday. It doesn't say much for the amount of effort that we put into looking after issues. -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-09 08:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.5272.1389286191.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #63550 |
On 01/09/2014 12:42 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 09/01/2014 01:27, Roy Smith wrote: >> >> Naive datetimes are what everybody uses. It's what utcnow() gives you. >> So why make life difficult for everybody? Python 3 didn't win a convert >> today. > > Yep, dates and times are easy. That's why there are 17 issues open on the bug tracker referencing tzinfo alone. Poor > old 1100942 is high priority, was created 12/01/2005 and has missed 3.4. So if it gets into 3.5 it'll have already > celebrated its 10th birthday. It doesn't say much for the amount of effort that we put into looking after issues. Mark, I hope you are addressing the community at large and not the core-devs. There are only so many of us, with limited time available. -- ~Ethan~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-09 18:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.5275.1389291532.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #63550 |
On 09/01/2014 16:01, Ethan Furman wrote: > On 01/09/2014 12:42 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote: >> On 09/01/2014 01:27, Roy Smith wrote: >>> >>> Naive datetimes are what everybody uses. It's what utcnow() gives you. >>> So why make life difficult for everybody? Python 3 didn't win a convert >>> today. >> >> Yep, dates and times are easy. That's why there are 17 issues open on >> the bug tracker referencing tzinfo alone. Poor >> old 1100942 is high priority, was created 12/01/2005 and has missed >> 3.4. So if it gets into 3.5 it'll have already >> celebrated its 10th birthday. It doesn't say much for the amount of >> effort that we put into looking after issues. > > Mark, I hope you are addressing the community at large and not the > core-devs. There are only so many of us, with limited time available. > > -- > ~Ethan~ As I'm not a core dev to whom do you think I'm referring? I'm aware that the high horse I get on about this is so tall that you'll need an oxygen supply to survive should you want to sit on it, but to me this is easily the worst aspect of the Python community as a whole. If every regular contributor to this list was to fix even one bug a week the figures would look rather better. Still, you can no more enforce that than you can enforce the core devs working on Python 2.8 :) Talking of which, have we got a PEP for that yet, or are the whingers still simply in whinging mode? -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-09 10:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.5277.1389292381.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #63550 |
On 01/09/2014 10:18 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 09/01/2014 16:01, Ethan Furman wrote: >> On 01/09/2014 12:42 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote: >>> On 09/01/2014 01:27, Roy Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> Naive datetimes are what everybody uses. It's what utcnow() gives you. >>>> So why make life difficult for everybody? Python 3 didn't win a convert >>>> today. >>> >>> Yep, dates and times are easy. That's why there are 17 issues open on >>> the bug tracker referencing tzinfo alone. Poor >>> old 1100942 is high priority, was created 12/01/2005 and has missed >>> 3.4. So if it gets into 3.5 it'll have already >>> celebrated its 10th birthday. It doesn't say much for the amount of >>> effort that we put into looking after issues. >> >> Mark, I hope you are addressing the community at large and not the >> core-devs. There are only so many of us, with limited time available. > > As I'm not a core dev to whom do you think I'm referring? Cool, just double-checking. :) > Still, you can no more enforce that than you can enforce the core devs > working on Python 2.8 :) > > Talking of which, have we got a PEP for that yet. . . As a matter of fact. It's called PEP 404. ;) -- ~Ethan~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-08 15:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.5172.1389192307.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #63477 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
I think for new projects one should go with 3.x this is the right thing to do. If you require a module that's 2.x only it's easy enough to port it unless it depends on some monster like protobuf which doesn't have python3.x support Pedro. On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk>wrote: > On 08/01/2014 14:15, Roy Smith wrote: > >> As somebody who is still firmly in the 2.x world, I'm worried about the >> idea of a 2.x fork. While I have my doubts that 3.x was a good idea, >> the fact is, it's here. Having the community fractured between the two >> camps is not good. Let's say I'm somebody who wants to contribute some >> OSS. I have three basic choices: >> >> 1) I can make it 3.x only. Now, (nominally) half of the python >> community is unable to realize value from my contribution. >> >> 2) I can make it 2.x only. Same thing in reverse. >> >> 3) I can make it work on both 2.x and 3.x, which means I'm investing >> more effort than I had to if it were single platform. >> >> Any of those alternatives is worse than ideal. Forking 2.x to create an >> unofficial 2.8 release would just prolong the situation. As I've stated >> before, I don't see any urgency in moving to 3.x, and don't imagine >> doing there for another couple of years, but I absolutely can't imagine >> moving to a 2.8 fork. >> >> > The above strikes me as common sense. Surely that's out of place on this > list? :) > > But to be serious why not stick with 2.x if there's no compelling reason > to move? Whatever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? And > before anyone says anything please don't start on about the bytes versus > string debate, I'm fairly certain that there are a substantial number of > application areas that don't run into these problems. > > > -- > My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what > you can do for our language. > > Mark Lawrence > > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-09 01:50 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.5173.1389192656.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #63477 |
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > But to be serious why not stick with 2.x if there's no compelling reason to > move? Whatever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? And before > anyone says anything please don't start on about the bytes versus string > debate, I'm fairly certain that there are a substantial number of > application areas that don't run into these problems. Two reasons for moving: 1) Support for newer hardware, underlying libraries, etc 2) Bug fixes and security patches. #1 won't be a visible problem for most people - they'll be using a Python packaged by their OS, so if there are any issues with building Python against version X.Y of libfoobar, the OS maintainers will either ship the older version of libfoobar, or make Python work. Only a handful of people (the OS package maintainers themselves) will even need to consider that. So it's #2 that people will be thinking about. There's going to come a time when python.org will no longer provide updates for Python 2.7, and at that point, everyone has to decide which is greater: the risk of undiscovered flaws, or the hassle of shifting. For most end users, they'll choose to stick with an unsupported Python rather than shift, but there are those (corporates, mainly) for whom a promise of bug fixes is critical, so that'd be their date to shift. After all, it worked for Windows XP, right? End-of-life date rolls around and everyone moves onto Windows 7.... hmm, maybe that didn't quite happen. Still, it does put pressure on people. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-08 15:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lajphk$klb$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #63482 |
On 2014-01-08, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> Two reasons for moving:
>
> 1) Support for newer hardware
How does Python 3.x support newer hardware than Python 2.7?
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Psychoanalysis??
at I thought this was a nude
gmail.com rap session!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-09 02:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.5175.1389195377.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #63483 |
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:06 AM, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 2014-01-08, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Two reasons for moving: >> >> 1) Support for newer hardware > > How does Python 3.x support newer hardware than Python 2.7? At the moment, I would say there's no difference between those two versions. But there was an issue a short while ago about OS X 10.9 and the compilers/libraries available for it, which necessitated some patches, and those patches would have been applied to all currently-supported versions of Python. That means that 2.7 got them (in 2.7.6 [1]), so it'll build nicely, but 2.6 won't have, so anyone who wants to use 2.6 on 10.9 will have to manually backport that fix. I mention hardware because there are times when the new hardware won't run the old OS, the new OS won't work with the old compiler and/or library, and the new compiler/library won't work with the old Python. At that point, you have to either run a virtual machine (overkill) or remain on the old hardware (hence, Python X.Y doesn't support your hardware). So long as 2.7 is being supported, there are no problems with this. Same with the bug fixes and security patches that I mention in the next line. Once it's out of support, though, both will cease (or they might cease at different times), and then new hardware, new compilers, new versions of required libraries, could cause problems. I elaborated further down that these issues would be mainly dealt with by OS package maintainers (I'm sure Red Hat have been doing this for years), but they'll still be problems. [1] http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.7.6/ ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-08 15:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.5199.1389213938.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #63477 |
On 1/8/2014 9:15 AM, Roy Smith wrote: > As somebody who is still firmly in the 2.x world, I'm worried about the > idea of a 2.x fork. While I have my doubts that 3.x was a good idea, > the fact is, it's here. Having the community fractured between the two > camps is not good. Let's say I'm somebody who wants to contribute some > OSS. I have three basic choices: > > 1) I can make it 3.x only. Now, (nominally) half of the python > community is unable to realize value from my contribution. > > 2) I can make it 2.x only. Same thing in reverse. > > 3) I can make it work on both 2.x and 3.x, which means I'm investing > more effort than I had to if it were single platform. > > Any of those alternatives is worse than ideal. Forking 2.x to create an > unofficial 2.8 release would just prolong the situation. As I've stated > before, I don't see any urgency in moving to 3.x, and don't imagine > doing there for another couple of years, but I absolutely can't imagine > moving to a 2.8 fork. This question cannot be answered generically. I think it worth noting that in part this is the same dilemma as 'how many versions to support' within each of 2.x and 3.x. Limiting code to 3.3+ allows use of the new asyncio module (via Pypy for 3.3) and the new FSR unicode. Use of asyncio or FSR features* also forces the choice you give above as neither can be backported to 2.7. * IE, support of all of unicode on all Python systems with straightforward code, without contortions. If I were giving away 'stand-alone' application code whose dependencies were available on both 2.7 and 3.x+, I would write for 3.x+ on the basis that everyone could install 3.x, and that new users are increasingly likely to only have 3.x only. I would have little sympathy for organizations that prohibit 3.x -- unless they were to pay me to. For numerical or combinatorial code, adding 'from __future__ import division' (which I think one should do anyway for 2.x code) might be the only extra work needed for option 3). -- Terry Jan Reedy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-08 14:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.5169.1389190570.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #63470 |
On 08/01/2014 12:36, Martijn Faassen wrote: > Hi there, > > On 01/07/2014 06:00 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> I'm still not sure how Python 2.8 needs to differ from 2.7. Maybe the >> touted upgrade path is simply a Python 2.7 installer plus a few handy >> libraries/modules that will now be preinstalled? These modules look >> great (I can't say, as I don't have a huge Py2 codebase to judge based >> on), and they presumably work on the existing Pythons. > > Well, in the original article I argue that it may be risky for the > Python community to leave the large 2.7 projects behind because they > tend to be the ones that pay us in the end. > > I also argue that for those projects to move anywhere, they need a > clear, blessed, official, as simple as possible, incremental upgrade > path. That's why I argue for a Python 2.8. > > Pointing out the 'future' module is existence proof that further > incremental steps could be taken on top of what Python 2.7 already does. > > I may be that these points are wrong or should be weighed differently. > It's possible that: > > * the risk of losing existing big 2.x projects is low, they'll port > anyway, the money will keep flowing into our community, they won't look > at other languages, etc. > > * these big 2.x projects are going to all find the 'future' module > themselves and use it as incremental upgrade path, so there's no need > for a new blessed Python 2.x. > > * the approach of the 'future' module turns out to be fatally flawed > and/or doesn't really help with incremental upgrades after all. > > But that's how I reason about it, and how I weigh things. I think the > current strategy is risky. > > Regards, > > Martijn > My understanding is that 95% of core developers won't work on 2.8, partly I suspect because of the massive overhead they've already had to do supporting 2 and 3 in parellel. Assuming that I'm correct, who is going to do the work involved, you Martijn? -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web