From: Mensanator on 12 Apr 2010 01:57
On Apr 11, 6:08 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st...(a)REMOVE-THIS-
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:54:04 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 11:53 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...(a)REMOVE-THIS-
> > cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:08:44 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
> >> >> > 3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed. As of now,
> >> >> > it's seriously broken and unsuitable for production.
> >> >> In what ways do you consider it broken?
> >> > Issue 8093. Remarkably, this apparently hasn't been noticed before.
> >> I think that tells you that it's an unimportant bug that doesn't really
> >> effect many people much,
> > It affects me ... a LOT.
> I suspect you're exaggerating,
I'm not. I often use a USB drive to store my source programs, makes it
easy to switch between computers. Not being able to eject the USB
is annoying, but not a game breaker. Likewise, I usually don't shut
when I leave work, so I can't allow orphaned processes to accumulate
eating up CPU and memory.
> but even if you're not, you are not the entire Python community.
This is probably happening to everyone, they just haven't noticed.
> You stated that "3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed".
> It sounds like what you really mean was
> "3.x won't be adopted by *me* until it's fixed"
Not at all. The only 3rd party library I use is gmpy, and that's been
updated, so I have more or less abandoned 2.x in favor of 3.x. I have
not installed the latest 2.6 version and have no intention of ever
> 3.x is already being adopted by developers.
Let's hope a little thing like this won't upset them.
> The two biggest factors
> slowing uptake of 3.x are: (1) lack of big libraries like numpy, and (2)
> that major Linux distros still ship with 2.6 or 2.5.
It was even worse with Mac OSX 10.6. Luckily, there's macports, so it
all got resolved.
> >> and a million miles from implying that Python 3.x is "seriously broken
> >> and unsuitable for production".
> > Maybe because I'm a user, not a developer.
> You write code. You use an Integrated DEVELOPMENT Environment. That makes
> you a developer.
Being a little pedantic here, aren't we? Would it help if I said
developer? After all, just because I dabble in Collatz Conjecture
a hobby, it doesn't give me the right to go around calling myself a
> >> > I expect 2.7 will be around for a long time.
> >> As reported on the bug tracker, this bug effects Python 2.7 as well.
> >> It's possible this bug goes back to, what? Python 2.5? 2.4? 2.3? Older?
> >> Who knows?
> > I can't imagine my not having noticed this before. It's plausible I
> > might not have noticed the runaway processes, but the fact that I can't
> > eject a USB drive would have been very obvious.
> Have you tried to reproduce it on 2.6 or 2.5?
No, all I can say is I haven't noticed it there. And given the
I can't see how I could have not noticed it.
On the other hand, I can't see how it could have gone unnoticed on
You don't suppose I'm the only one actually using 3.1?
> Unless you actively try to
> reproduce it, you can't assume it doesn't occur.
True, just as you can't assume I'm the only one it's happening to.
> >> In any case, IDLE is one IDE out of many, and not really up to
> >> professional quality -- it's clunky and ugly. It isn't Python, it is a
> >> tool written in Python.
> > You have no idea what the cause is, yet you're certain that the symptom
> > is confined to IDLE.
> Certain? Of course not. But given an issue that is reported with a single
> application, which is more likely? That it is a bug in the language, or a
> bug in the application?
*I* never said the LANGUAGE was broken. I specifically made reference
Windows implementation of 3.1.2.
> Even if it is a bug in the language, some fundamental failure of the
> underlying Python virtual machine or built-in objects, there are dozens
> of standard library modules, and thousands of third-party modules, that
> it doesn't affect.
I assume you mean when not run in IDLE. And how do you know they're
affected? Didn't you just get done yelling at me for not testing it in
2.5 & 2.6?
> > That's the kind of thinking that leads to such bugs in the first place.
You think these bugs are done deliberately?
From: Martin P. Hellwig on 12 Apr 2010 02:16
On 04/12/10 06:57, Mensanator wrote:
> On Apr 11, 6:08 pm, Steven D'Aprano<st...(a)REMOVE-THIS-
> cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:54:04 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
>>> On Apr 11, 11:53 am, Steven D'Aprano<st...(a)REMOVE-THIS-
>>> cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:08:44 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
>>> Maybe because I'm a user, not a developer.
>> You write code. You use an Integrated DEVELOPMENT Environment. That makes
>> you a developer.
> Being a little pedantic here, aren't we? Would it help if I said
> developer? After all, just because I dabble in Collatz Conjecture
> research as
> a hobby, it doesn't give me the right to go around calling myself a
<really pedantic state='on'>
Well professional in IT context often just means that you do it for a
living, doesn't necessarly say you are any good in what you are doing.
I am especially wary to certified professionals by biased 'institutes'
like Cisco and Microsoft. </really pedantic>
From: alex23 on 12 Apr 2010 04:51
Mensanator <mensana...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> You think the right thing to do is just quietly work
> around the problem and sit back and laugh knowing sooner
> or later someone else will get burned by it?
Haven't we covered argument from fallacy enough in this group by now?
Reporting the bug was exactly the right thing to do. Loudly
pronouncing the impending demise of 3.x because of it was not. Coming
up with exaggerated parodies of arguments that no one here is actually
making is even worse.
> Why do you guys think I'm talking about the language? I'm talking
> about a particular implementation.
Probably because _you_ made no such restriction with your blanket
statement of "3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed". If
only "under Windows", "probably" and "IDLE" had been injected into it,
I don't think there would have been a word of disagreement.
From: Mark Lawrence on 12 Apr 2010 09:56
> On Apr 10, 11:51�pm, alex23 <wuwe...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mensanator <mensana...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>>> 3.x won't be adopted by WINDOWS developers WHO USE IDLE until it's fixed.
>> I think you left your hyperbole level too high so I turned it down for
>> you. I don't know of _anyone_ who uses IDLE to run production code,
>> nor do I follow how one errant IDE shows that Python 3.x as a language
>> is broken.
> Planning to buy a Toyota?
No, on the grounds that I have an Enterprise Probike, which being chain
driven is vastly superior to any gas guzzling petrol or diesel driven
vehicle. Ok, it's slower, but it gets me there in the end.
From: Terry Reedy on 12 Apr 2010 12:39
On 4/12/2010 1:57 AM, Mensanator wrote:
> Likewise, I usually don't shut down
> when I leave work, so I can't allow orphaned processes to accumulate
> eating up CPU and memory.
Orphaned processes only accumulate when you use Restart Shell to abandon
a process stuck in an infinite loop. I personally very seldom do that.
Otherwise, the old process dies in a few seconds and the number of
pythonw processes drops back down from 3 to the normal 2.
As I already said, either roboot or use TaskManager to kill such
zombies. When I had a unix desktop machine, I routinely used the command
line equivalents ps (process status) and kill to do the same thing.
Terry Jan Reedy