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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #63838 > unrolled thread

Re: Code review?

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: Code review? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-14 03:40 +1100
    Re: Code review? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-01-13 20:43 +0000
      Re: Code review? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-14 10:34 +1100
        Re: Code review? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2014-01-14 07:22 +0000
          Re: Code review? Bayram Güçlü <byrmgcl@yandex.com.tr> - 2014-01-14 11:29 +0400
          Re: Code review? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-14 18:36 +1100

#63838 — Re: Code review?

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Adam <sk82712@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all.  New to the list.  I’m working on a web app with 2.6 and Flask.  I’m still relatively new to python.  Is there a chance to get a code review from anyone?  I really want someone to just tear up my code and tell me how to increase my efficiency and what I’m doing wrong (and how to upload images via a form in Flask, but that’s another story).
>

Definitely! Preferably, post your code in-line; if it's too long for
that, post it someplace else and link to it. Be sure not to damage
indentation, of course, but no matter how new you are to Python you'll
know that!

Incidentally, is there a reason you're using Python 2.6? You should be
able to upgrade at least to 2.7, and Flask ought to work fine on 3.3
(the current stable Python). If it's the beginning of your project,
and you have nothing binding you to Python 2, go with Python 3.
Converting a small project now will save you the job of converting a
big project in ten years' time :)

ChrisA

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#63862

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:40:25 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:

> Incidentally, is there a reason you're using Python 2.6? You should be
> able to upgrade at least to 2.7, and Flask ought to work fine on 3.3
> (the current stable Python). If it's the beginning of your project, and
> you have nothing binding you to Python 2, go with Python 3. Converting a
> small project now will save you the job of converting a big project in
> ten years' time

Everything you say is correct, but remember that there is a rather large 
ecosystem of people writing code to run on servers where the supported 
version of Python is 2.6, 2.5, 2.4 and even 2.3. RedHat, for example, 
still has at least one version of RHEL still under commercial support 
where the system Python is 2.3, at least that was the case a few months 
back, it may have reached end-of-life by now. But 2.4 will definitely 
still be under support.

(I don't believe there is any mainstream Linux distro still supporting 
versions older than 2.3.)

Not everyone is willing, permitted or able to install Python other than 
that which their OS provides, and we ought to respect that.

Hell, if somebody wants to ask questions about Python 1.5, we can answer 
them! The core language is still recognisably Python, a surprisingly 
large number of libraries were around back then (it was Python 1.4 or 1.5 
which first got the reputation of "batteries included"), and I for one 
still have it installed so I can even test code for it.


-- 
Steven

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

#63867

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:40:25 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, is there a reason you're using Python 2.6? You should be
>> able to upgrade at least to 2.7, and Flask ought to work fine on 3.3
>> (the current stable Python). If it's the beginning of your project, and
>> you have nothing binding you to Python 2, go with Python 3. Converting a
>> small project now will save you the job of converting a big project in
>> ten years' time
>
> Everything you say is correct, but remember that there is a rather large
> ecosystem of people writing code to run on servers where the supported
> version of Python is 2.6, 2.5, 2.4 and even 2.3. RedHat, for example,
> still has at least one version of RHEL still under commercial support
> where the system Python is 2.3, at least that was the case a few months
> back, it may have reached end-of-life by now. But 2.4 will definitely
> still be under support.

Pledging that your app will run on the system Python of RHEL is
something that binds you to a particular set of versions of Python.
It's not just library support that does that.

ChrisA

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

#63871

in 714500 20140113 233415 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:40:25 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>>> Incidentally, is there a reason you're using Python 2.6? You should be
>>> able to upgrade at least to 2.7, and Flask ought to work fine on 3.3
>>> (the current stable Python). If it's the beginning of your project, and
>>> you have nothing binding you to Python 2, go with Python 3. Converting a
>>> small project now will save you the job of converting a big project in
>>> ten years' time
>>
>> Everything you say is correct, but remember that there is a rather large
>> ecosystem of people writing code to run on servers where the supported
>> version of Python is 2.6, 2.5, 2.4 and even 2.3. RedHat, for example,
>> still has at least one version of RHEL still under commercial support
>> where the system Python is 2.3, at least that was the case a few months
>> back, it may have reached end-of-life by now. But 2.4 will definitely
>> still be under support.
>
>Pledging that your app will run on the system Python of RHEL is
>something that binds you to a particular set of versions of Python.
>It's not just library support that does that.

Does any Linux distro ship with Python 3?  I haven't seen one.

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

#63872

On 14-01-2014 11:22, Bob Martin wrote:
> in 714500 20140113 233415 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:40:25 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>>
>>>> Incidentally, is there a reason you're using Python 2.6? You should be
>>>> able to upgrade at least to 2.7, and Flask ought to work fine on 3.3
>>>> (the current stable Python). If it's the beginning of your project, and
>>>> you have nothing binding you to Python 2, go with Python 3. Converting a
>>>> small project now will save you the job of converting a big project in
>>>> ten years' time
>>>
>>> Everything you say is correct, but remember that there is a rather large
>>> ecosystem of people writing code to run on servers where the supported
>>> version of Python is 2.6, 2.5, 2.4 and even 2.3. RedHat, for example,
>>> still has at least one version of RHEL still under commercial support
>>> where the system Python is 2.3, at least that was the case a few months
>>> back, it may have reached end-of-life by now. But 2.4 will definitely
>>> still be under support.
>>
>> Pledging that your app will run on the system Python of RHEL is
>> something that binds you to a particular set of versions of Python.
>> It's not just library support that does that.
>
> Does any Linux distro ship with Python 3?  I haven't seen one.
>
Debian GNU/Linux

https://wiki.debian.org/Python/Python3.3

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

#63874

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
> Does any Linux distro ship with Python 3?  I haven't seen one.

On most Debian-based distros, you can simply 'apt-get install
python3', and you'll get some 3.x version (in Debian Squeeze, that's
3.1, Debian Wheezy packages 3.2; Ubuntu since Raring gives you 3.3).
Whether or not you actually have it - or python2 for that matter -
installed depends on your choices, anything that depends on it will
pull it in or you can grab it manually.

Arch Linux ships 3.3.3 under the name "python", and 2.7.6 under the
name "python2" - an inversion of the Debian practice. Other distros
are looking toward shifting, too.

I'd guess that all mainstream distributions carry both branches. It's
just a question of what people get when they ask for "Python" in the
most normal way to do that.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web