[Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X

[Jesse Noller]

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