[Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X (original) (raw)

Michael Foord fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk
Sat Jun 19 00:08:32 CEST 2010

On 18/06/2010 19:52, lutz at rmi.net wrote:

I wasn't calling Python 3 a turd. I was trying to show the strangeness of the logic behind your rationalization. And failing badly... (maybe I should have used "tar ball"?)

I didn't make myself clear. The expected disappointment I was referring to was about the rate of adoption, not about the quality of the product.

I'm still baffled as to how a bug in the cgi module (along with the acknowledged email problems) is such a big deal. Was it reported and then languished in the bug tracker? That would be bad ion its own but if it was only recently discovered that indicates that it probably isn't such a big deal - either way it needs fixing, but using Python for writing cgis hasn't been a big use case for a long time.

All the best,

Michael

What I'm suggesting is that extreme caution be exercised from this point forward with all things 3.X-related. Whether you wish to accept this or not, 3.X has a negative image to many. This suggestion specifically includes not abandoning current 3.X email package users as a case in point. Ripping the rug out from new 3.X users after they took the time to port seems like it may be just enough to tip the scales altogether.

--Mark Lutz (http://learning-python.com, http://rmi.net/~lutz)

-----Original Message----- From: Michael Foord<fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> To: lutz at rmi.net Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:27:46 +0100 On 18/06/2010 18:22, lutz at rmi.net wrote:

Python 3.0 was declared to be an experimental release, and by most standards 3.1 (in terms of the core language and functionality) was a solid release.

Any reasonable expectation about Python 3 adoption predicted that it would take years, and would include going through a phase of difficulty and disappointment...

Declaring something to be a turd doesn't change the fact that it's a turd. Right - but you're the one calling it a turd, which is not a helpful approach or likely to achieve anything useful. I still have no idea what you are actually suggesting. I have a feeling that most people outside this list would have much rather avoided the difficulty and disappointment altogether. Let's be honest here; 3.X was released to the community in part as an extended beta. Correction - 3.0 was an experimental release. That is not true of 3.1 and future releases. All the best, Michael That's not a problem, unless you drop the word "beta". And if you're still not buying that, imagine the sort of response you'd get if you tried to sell software that billed itself as "experimental", and promised a phase of "disappointment". Why would you expect the Python world to react any differently?

Whilst I agree that there are plenty of issues to workon, and I don't underestimate the difficulty of some of them, I think "half-baked" is very much overblown. Whilst you have a lot to say about how much of a problem this is I don't understand what you are suggesting be done? I agree that 3.X isn't all bad, and I very much hope it succeeds. And no, I have no answers; I'm just reporting the perception from downwind. So here it is: The prevailing view is that 3.X developers hoisted things on users that they did not fully work through themselves. Unicode is prime among these: for all the talk here about how 2.X was broken in this regard, the implications of the 3.X string solution remain to be fully resolved in the 3.X standard library to this day. What is a common Python user to make of that? --Mark Lutz (http://learning-python.com, http://rmi.net/~lutz)

-- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

-- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog

READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list