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

Jesse Noller jnoller at gmail.com
Sat Jun 19 16:59:18 CEST 2010

On Jun 19, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Tres Seaver <tseaver at palladion.com> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Jesse Noller wrote: On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:48 PM, P.J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:

At 05:22 PM 6/18/2010 +0000, lutz at rmi.net wrote:

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? Certainly, this was my impression as well, after all the Web-SIG discussions regarding the state of the stdlib in 3.x with respect to URL parsing, joining, opening, etc. Nothing is set in stone; if something is incredibly painful, or worse yet broken, then someone needs to file a bug, bring it to this list, or bring up a patch. Or walk away.

Ok. If you want.

This is code we're talking about - nothing is set in stone, and if something is criminally broken it needs to be first identified, and then fixed.

To be honest, I'm waiting to see some sort of tutorial(s) for using 3.x that actually addresses these kinds of stdlib usage issues, so that I don't have to think about it or futz around with experimenting, possibly to find that some things can't be done at all. I guess tutorial welcome, rather than patch welcome then ;) The only folks who can write the tutorial are the ones who have already drunk the koolaid. Note that I've been making my living with Python for about twelve years now, and would like to use Python3, but can't, yet, and therefore haven't taken the first sip.

Why can't you? Is it a bug? Let's file it and fix it. Is it that you
need a dependency ported? Cool - let's bring it up to the maintainers,
or this list, or ask the PSF to push resources into helping port.
Anything but nothing.

If what you're saying is that python 3 is a completely unsuitable
platform, well, then yeah - we can all "fix" it or walk away.

IOW, 3.x has broken TOOOWTDI for me in some areas. There may be obvious ways to do it, but, as per the Zen of Python, "that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch". ;-) What areas. We need specifics which can either be: 1> Shot down. 2> Turned into bugs, so they can be fixed 3> Documented in the core documentation. That's bloody ironic in a thread which had pointed at reasons why people are not even considering Py3 for their projects: those folks won't even find the issues due to the lack of confidence in the suitability of the platform.

What I saw was a thread about some issues in email, and cgi. We have
some work being done to address the issue. This will help resolve some
of the issues.

I'd there are other issues, then we should step up and either help, or
get out ofthe way. Arguing about the viability of a platform we knew
would take a bit for adoption is silly and breeds ill will.

It's not a turd, and it's not hopeless, in fact rumor has it NumPy
will be ported soon which is a major stepping stone.

The only way to counteract this meme that python 3 is horribly
broken is to prove that it's not, fix bugs, and move on. There's no
point debating relative turdiness here.

Jesse

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list