pyjamas 0.8alpha1 release

[lkcl]

On May 18, 2:33 am, Terry Reedy <tjre... at udel.edu> wrote:

> On 5/17/2011 12:07 PM, lkcl wrote:
>
> > On May 4, 7:37 pm, Terry Reedy<tjre... at udel.edu>  wrote:
> >> On 5/4/2011 10:06 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> >>> pyjamasis a suite of projects, including a python-to-javascript
> >>> compiler
> >> As you well know, there is no such thing as 'python' when it comes to
> >> compiling actual code. So please specify both in announcements here and
> >> on the project homepagehttp://sourceforge.net/projects/pyjamas/
> >> which versions are supported.
>
>  > [no response]
>
> I would still like to know. Do you fully support 2.7? It has many of the
> same changes that are in 3.1 and even 3.2 so I can imagine it would be
> difficult.

 sorry, terry, missed this out.  there are two answers:

 a) at the moment a http://python.org 2.N interpreter is required to
actually run the translator.  if you use http://python.org 2.5 or 2.6
you do not need to use the "--internal-ast" option.  if you use 2.4,
2.7 or above, you will need to use --internal-ast because we're
heavily reliant on the internal c-based "compile" module [without the
--internal-ast option enabled].

 b) the actual pyjs interpreter grammar (AST) was 2.5 but has mostly
been updated to 2.6.  actual python syntax / features are therefore
mostly 2.5, with someone having pointed out that "slice" has different
return results it's hard to say exactly which is best to be picked,
2.5 or 2.6.  nobody's needed slice until recently, so it's not an
issue that's ever come up before.

 the thing is - it's worth reiterating: you just... really don't need
as much python interoperability for user-interfaces when they're split
along MVC lines.  bear in mind that it's necessary to do that split:
it's web browser technology, you can't *actually* execute things like
psycopg or mysql in a web browser as javascript!  so once you've
divided that application into "python that runs the actual user
interface" and "python on the other side of the AJAX barrier e.g. a
django app" you're left with a far smaller task for the pyjs
interpreter to have to tackle.

 this is why it's been so unnecessary to keep absolutely up-to-date
with the full python development that's been going on, yet we still
have people developing 10,000+ LOC 2 man-year pyjamas projects.

 that having been said, there _is_ the requirement to be "python
strict" as well as "fast" - mutually exclusive of course.  and there
is someone working on getting the pyjs compiler and supporting
libraries into shape in order to run the entire http://python.org
regression test suite.  there really are quite a lot of little sub-
projects within the pyjamas project.


> >> If you do not yet support 3.x, I request and recommend that you do so,
>
> > with the situation as it is, there is not a snowball in hell's chance
> > that's going to happen. allow me to explain.
>
> Thank you for the explanation.

 not a problem.

> You are right that I probably underestimated the work,

 yeah... i apologise for the somewhat-evident flabbergasted tone that
may have been apparent in what could otherwise be considered to be a
project outline / roadmap :)

> though you have or will do some of what is
> needed to fully support 2.7.

 weell... see above: it's kiinda unnecessary - it just depends on
people's needs.  if there are intelligent and willing people (like
kees) who just come along and go "yep, that's nice, but it's not good
enough for me: i'm going to make it so" then it'll happen.  everyone
else _not_ willing to put in the effort to make pyjs do what they want
will just have to put up with the foibles.

 so if someone wants to do it, hell i'm not going to stand in the way
- anyone who asks i give them commit rights, point them at the
DEVELOPER.RULES and let them get on with it.

> ...
>
> >   otherwise please - really: just saying "give me support for python
> > 3.x or else" is ...
>
> And I did not say that.

 yeah i know - i'm sorry: it just, with a little bit of "twisting",
could be construed as implying that.

> > "python 3 is the future of python" gimme a break!!
>
> Let's discuss that in a couple of years.

 :)  i think... people forget that there are now two mutually-
exclusively-incompatible programming languages out there, where the
first six letters of the name of the programming language happen to be
the same...

l.