myths about python 3
in [Python]
|
Prev: Ad hoc lists vs ad hoc tuples
Next: Python and Ruby
From: Dino Viehland on 28 Jan 2010 11:37 Stefan wrote: > >From an implementors point of view, it's actually quite the opposite. Most > syntax features of Python 3 can be easily implemented on top of an existing > Py2 Implementation (we have most of them in Cython already, and I really > found them fun to write), and the shifting-around in the standard library > can hardly be called non-trivial. All the hard work that went into the > design of CPython 3.x (and into its test suite) now makes it easy to just > steal from what's there already. > > The amount of work that the Jython project put into catching up from 2.1 to > 2.5/6 (new style classes! generators!) is really humongous compared to the > adaptations that an implementation needs to do to support Python 3 code. I > have great respect for the Jython project for what they achieved in the > last couple of years. (I also have great respect for the IronPython project > for fighting the One Microsoft Way into opening up, but that's a different > kind of business.) > > If there was enough interest from the respective core developers, I > wouldn't be surprised if we had more than one 'mostly compatible' > alternative Python 3 implementation in a couple of months. But it's the > obvious vicious circle business. As long as there aren't enough important > users of Py3, alternative implementations won't have enough incentives to > refocus their scarce developer time. Going for 2.6/7 first means that most > of the Py3 work gets done anyway, so it'll be even easier then. That makes > 2.6->2.7->3.2/3 the most natural implementation path. (And that, again, > makes it a *really* good decision that 2.7 will be the last 2.x release line.) I just want to echo this as I completely agree. Last time I went through the list it looked like there were around 10 major new features (some of them even not so major) that we needed to implement to bring IronPython up to the 3.0 level. It shouldn't be too time consuming, and it greatly improves our compatibility by finally having the same string types, but our users don't yet want us to stop supporting 2.x.
From: Antoine Pitrou on 28 Jan 2010 11:52 Le Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:19:24 +0000, Steven D'Aprano a écrit : > 4. Python 3 will make you irresistible to women. > > FALSE - Python 3 coders are no more likely to get a date than any > other programmer. They spend less time coding, so they /can/ get more "dates" (what a strange English word) :-) Those dates don't have to be with women of course.
From: Antoine Pitrou on 28 Jan 2010 11:55 Le Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:36:29 -0800, alex23 a écrit : > > I've been a big supporter of Py3 from the beginning, but this repeated > claim of US becoming the mainline interpreter for 3.x pretty much kills > dead a lot of my interest. As long as the U-S JIT can be disabled at compile-time (and also at runtime), I don't think there's much of a contention actually. The other changes probably aren't controversial, although I haven't looked at them. Antoine.
From: Carl Banks on 28 Jan 2010 13:21 On Jan 28, 8:10 am, a...(a)pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote: > In article <Zt68n.3893$pv.1...(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, > Neil Hodgson <nyamatongwe+thun...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >Carl Banks: > > >> There is also no hope someone will fork Python 2.x and continue it in > >> perpetuity. Well, someone might try to fork it, but they won't be > >> able to call it Python. > > > Over time there may be more desire from those unable or unwilling to > >upgrade to 3.x to work on improvements to 2.x, perhaps leading to a > >version 2.8. One of the benefits of open source is that you are not > >trapped into following vendor decisions like Microsoft abandoning > >classic VB in favour of VB.NET. > > > It would be unreasonable for the core developers to try to block > >this. Refusing use of the Python trademark for a version that was > >reasonably compatible in both directions would be particularly petty. > > Agreed, and as a PSF member, I'd certainly be opposed to anyone trying to > prevent the release of Python 2.8, and I would actively favor providing > PSF and python.org resources to them. OTOH, I would also be likely to > push anyone working on Python 2.8 to come up with a solid release plan > first. Well, I'd consider that an official release. Note that I didn't claim there was no hope PSF wouldn't change it's mind on 2.8. All I saying is that if PSF decides to shut down 2.x there's no hope of a rogue Python 2.x series replacing Python 3.x. Regardless of how magnaminous the people of PSF are, the unfortunate reality is that trademark owners are forced by the law to be "particularly petty". PSF's IP lawyer will advise not to allow unsanctioned fork of Python 2.7 to call itself Python 2.8. Carl Banks
From: Steve Holden on 28 Jan 2010 14:51
Carl Banks wrote: > On Jan 28, 8:10 am, a...(a)pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote: >> In article <Zt68n.3893$pv.1...(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, >> Neil Hodgson <nyamatongwe+thun...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Carl Banks: >>>> There is also no hope someone will fork Python 2.x and continue it in >>>> perpetuity. Well, someone might try to fork it, but they won't be >>>> able to call it Python. >>> Over time there may be more desire from those unable or unwilling to >>> upgrade to 3.x to work on improvements to 2.x, perhaps leading to a >>> version 2.8. One of the benefits of open source is that you are not >>> trapped into following vendor decisions like Microsoft abandoning >>> classic VB in favour of VB.NET. >>> It would be unreasonable for the core developers to try to block >>> this. Refusing use of the Python trademark for a version that was >>> reasonably compatible in both directions would be particularly petty. >> Agreed, and as a PSF member, I'd certainly be opposed to anyone trying to >> prevent the release of Python 2.8, and I would actively favor providing >> PSF and python.org resources to them. OTOH, I would also be likely to >> push anyone working on Python 2.8 to come up with a solid release plan >> first. > > Well, I'd consider that an official release. Note that I didn't claim > there was no hope PSF wouldn't change it's mind on 2.8. All I saying > is that if PSF decides to shut down 2.x there's no hope of a rogue > Python 2.x series replacing Python 3.x. > > Regardless of how magnaminous the people of PSF are, the unfortunate > reality is that trademark owners are forced by the law to be > "particularly petty". PSF's IP lawyer will advise not to allow > unsanctioned fork of Python 2.7 to call itself Python 2.8. > But if it were sanctioned ... ? We *are* pretty magnanimous ;-) regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 PyCon is coming! Atlanta, Feb 2010 http://us.pycon.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/ |