myths about python 3
in [Python]
|
Prev: Ad hoc lists vs ad hoc tuples
Next: Python and Ruby
From: Carl Banks on 27 Jan 2010 20:59 On Jan 27, 5:36 pm, alex23 <wuwe...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Terry Reedy <tjre...(a)udel.edu> wrote: > > Actually, Unladen Swallow is now targeted at 3.1; its developers have > > conservatively proposed its integration in CPython 3.3. I would not be > > completely shocked if it happens in 3.2. > > Why do I feel like there's less of an onus on Unladen Swallow to > _actually prove itself in substantial real world usage_ before > integration into CPython than there is on even the smallest of modules > for inclusion in the standard library? I don't sense that. I get a sense that there's a lot of people licking their chops because it's sponsored by Google and everything Google touches turns to gold, but that's just nameless plebians. I trust the developers not to be easily convinced. If GvR allows this into CPython without something like a typical 4x speed increase I'll eat my hat. Carl Banks
From: Neil Hodgson on 27 Jan 2010 21:18 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. Neil
From: Steve Holden on 27 Jan 2010 21:37 John Nagle wrote: > Daniel Fetchinson wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths >> periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the >> posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply are >> not aware of the facts. >> >> My list is surely incomplete, please feel free to post your favorite >> misconception about python 3 that people periodically state, claim or >> ask about. > > Myths about Python 3: > > 1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions. > > FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best. > Why would a "major Linux distribution" want to saddle themselves with such a new technology so erly in its lifetime? > 2. Python 3 is supported by multiple Python implementations. > > FALSE - Only CPython supports 3.x. Iron Python, Unladen Swallow, > PyPy, and Jython have all stayed with 2.x versions of Python. > Your selective information here is particularly partial to your case. I have spoken with developers from IronPython and Jython, and both teams are committed to eventual support of 3.x. > 3. Python 3 is supported by most 3rd party Python packages. > > FALSE - it's not supported by MySQLdb, OpenSSL, feedparser, etc. > I would argue it's up to Python to support those facilities rather than the other way round. > Arguably, Python 3 has been rejected by the market. Instead, there's > now Python 2.6, Python 2.7, and Python 2.8. Python 3 has turned into > a debacle like Perl 6, now 10 years old. > > That's the reality, Python 3 fanboys. > Kindly confine your debate to the facts and keep the snide remarks to yourself. Like it or not Python 3 is the future, and unladen swallow's recent announcement that they would target only Python 3 represented a ground-breaking advance for the language. Happily my Python 2.x interpreters all continue to work just as they have since they were installed. If you have to stretch as far as Perl 6 for an analogy then you have clearly stretched a little too far. The situations are not even closely comparable, and I defy you to argue otherwise. 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/
From: Paul Rubin on 27 Jan 2010 21:44 Steve Holden <steve(a)holdenweb.com> writes: > Kindly confine your debate to the facts and keep the snide remarks to > yourself. Like it or not Python 3 is the future, and unladen swallow's > recent announcement that they would target only Python 3 represented a > ground-breaking advance for the language. My take on things is that doing unladen swallow really "right" will require yet more incompatible changes; i.e., the result will either still leave quite a bit of performance on the table, or else it won't be compatible with the current specification of Python 3 and they'll presumably have to call it Python 4. And if Python 4 is as good as I believe it could possibly be, then it might get wide acceptance before Python 3 really has all that much uptake. If I have to accept incompatibility anyway, and Python 4 gives huge improvements while Python 3's improvements are tiny or moderate, why not skip over Python 3?
From: Terry Reedy on 28 Jan 2010 01:39
On 1/27/2010 8:36 PM, alex23 wrote: > Terry Reedy<tjre...(a)udel.edu> wrote: >> Actually, Unladen Swallow is now targeted at 3.1; its developers have >> conservatively proposed its integration in CPython 3.3. This statement was to counter the 'myth' that US was only targeted at 2.x when the current situation is quite the opposite. >> I would not be completely shocked if it happens in 3.2. I was initially rather dubious about the idea. I based the above on the team's acceptance of and response to reasonable requirements. In particular, several people said that the speed/space traceoff should be optional, and that compilation 'without llvm' should really be without, not just with llvm present but disabled. Instead of arguing, Colin went ahead and patched the build process to make it be this way. > Why do I feel like there's less of an onus on Unladen Swallow to > _actually prove itself in substantial real world usage_ before > integration into CPython than there is on even the smallest of modules > for inclusion in the standard library? I have no idea. It will have to improve its speedup more before adoption. I will not be surprised if that happens. > Are we really expected to just ditch everything we know about > CPython's performance characteristics just for some questionable and > possibly uneven gains? > > I've been a big supporter of Py3 from the beginning, but this repeated > claim of US becoming the mainline interpreter for 3.x US is not a new or separate interpreter. It will be an optional jit replacement for one component of CPython, the eval loop. All the code for builting functions, types, and modules will be untouched, as will their big O performance characteristics. > pretty much kills dead a lot of my interest. If you can still have a binary free of the traceoff, why would you care? > What am I not seeing amidst the high > memory usage and variable performance results of US's _custom-made_ > benchmarks? Doesn't that fact alone worry anyone else? Or that LLVM is > listed as only having "partial support" with non-Cygwin x86 Windows? They claim they have pretty well fixed that. They know that complete Windows support, including 64 bit versions, is a necessity. Terry Jan Reedy |