[Python-Dev] [RELEASED] Python 2.7 alpha 2 (original) (raw)
David Lyon david.lyon at preisshare.net
Tue Jan 12 00:22:42 CET 2010
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [RELEASED] Python 2.7 alpha 2
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [RELEASED] Python 2.7 alpha 2
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hi Martin,
Of course, the less active fraction of Python contributors may not notice, since they just chose to not contribute (which, of course, is fine). However, asking me to work twice as much as I want to on the project to keep two branches alive is just unfair.
Totally true. Actually as an end-developer I'd say that python 2.x series from a programming perspective is quite good. It doesn't need the addition of a lot of new features imho.
So for me, I think too much time spent there would be not yield great benefits.
This has nothing to do with pushing 3.x, but all with managing available manpower and still providing quality software.
Well, we all know your work is super quality. :-) That's not being contested.
However, Quality can be measured different ways and it can be assessed in different ways. Quality itself is a subjective thing.
The point I'm only making is that if a piece of software doesn't have "new" things added over time, then users can get a reverse impression of a lack of quality.
We've all seen where 'internal' quality can increase and user perceptions can decrease.
It could be things like improved graphics and things readily apparent to the user.
At the moment, I would say that the "internal" quality of the python 2.x series is super high. "external" quality issues such as the packaging dilemma give the user the opposite quality experience. But people are working on that as best they can elsewhere. I'll leave it at that.
This has nothing to do with pushing 3.x, but all with managing available manpower and still providing quality software.
Python 3.x needs more carrots.
From an ordinary (perphaps ignorant) user perspective there is nothing. Yes, we know if we actually will start programming then we will like it more.
But my wishes to Santa Claus would be allow the free flow of PEPs for Python 3 packaging. Even encourage it.
As an end developer, here's what I'd like from Santa in 2010 to get me to swap to python 3:
get all the packages on pypi tested for python 3
put a web based package manager in python 3. This would perhaps be based around PIP (keep many people happy) and would look much like the built in web-console that you get with a $200 router.
Incorporate SCM based end-user software installs by adding to python3-stdlib the SCM support packages (cvs,bzr,svn,hg). This would really help in the scientific community.
put a web interface on distutils also so that we don't have to use a command line interface. (I want a pic of a smiley girl to great me when I build something - "Are you ready to build now Honey?"). ok - I joke. But the point is made.
So, ok, maybe these things aren't about 'code' quality. But rather user experience.
Things like these do count also as "quality" via the technical term "perception of quality".
If the PEP process is as unblocked as the documentation implies, implying that anybody can contribute to Python 3. Then there shouldn't be any issue.
David
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [RELEASED] Python 2.7 alpha 2
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [RELEASED] Python 2.7 alpha 2
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]