FAQ
On behalf of the Python development team, I'm merry to announce the first beta
release of Python 2.7.

Python 2.7 is scheduled (by Guido and Python-dev) to be the last major version
in the 2.x series. Though more major releases have not been absolutely ruled
out, it's likely that the 2.7 release will an extended period of maintenance for
the 2.x series.

2.7 includes many features that were first released in Python 3.1. The faster
io module, the new nested with statement syntax, improved float repr, set
literals, dictionary views, and the memoryview object have been backported from
3.1. Other features include an ordered dictionary implementation, unittests
improvements, a new sysconfig module, and support for ttk Tile in Tkinter. For
a more extensive list of changes in 2.7, see
http://doc.python.org/dev/whatsnew/2.7.html or Misc/NEWS in the Python
distribution.

To download Python 2.7 visit:

http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.7/

While this is a development release and is thus not suitable for production use,
we encourage Python application and library developers to test the release with
their code and report any bugs they encounter.

The 2.7 documentation can be found at:

http://docs.python.org/2.7

Please consider trying Python 2.7 with your code and reporting any bugs you may
notice to:

http://bugs.python.org


Enjoy!

--
Benjamin Peterson
2.7 Release Manager
benjamin at python.org
(on behalf of the entire python-dev team and 2.7's contributors)

Search Discussions

  • Average at Apr 10, 2010 at 10:13 pm

    On behalf of the Python development team, I'm merry to announce the first beta
    release of Python 2.7.

    Python 2.7 is scheduled (by Guido and Python-dev) to be the last major version
    in the 2.x series. ?Though more major releases have not been absolutely ruled
    out, it's likely that the 2.7 release will an extended period of maintenance for
    the 2.x series.
    May I propose that the developers consider keeping this release *beta*
    until after the present Python moratorium? That is, don't let it be
    marked as *official* until after, say, Python 3.3.

    There are so many features taken from 3.0 that I fear that it will
    postpone its adoption interminably (it is, in practice, treated as
    "beta" software itself). By making it doctrine that it won't be
    official until the next "major" Python release, it will encourage
    those who are able, to just make the jump to 3.0, while those who
    cannot will have the subtle pressure to make the shift, however
    gradual. Additionally, it will give the community further incentive
    to make Python3 all that it was intended to be. Personally, the
    timing of v3 prevented me from fully participating in that effort,
    and, not ignoring the work of those who did contribute, I think many
    of us feel that it has not reached its potential.

    Just a small suggestion... .. .

    marcos
  • Melton Low at Apr 10, 2010 at 10:27 pm

    On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:13 PM, average wrote:

    On behalf of the Python development team, I'm merry to announce the first beta
    release of Python 2.7.

    Python 2.7 is scheduled (by Guido and Python-dev) to be the last major version
    in the 2.x series. Though more major releases have not been absolutely ruled
    out, it's likely that the 2.7 release will an extended period of
    maintenance for
    the 2.x series.
    May I propose that the developers consider keeping this release *beta*
    until after the present Python moratorium? That is, don't let it be
    marked as *official* until after, say, Python 3.3.

    There are so many features taken from 3.0 that I fear that it will
    postpone its adoption interminably (it is, in practice, treated as
    "beta" software itself). By making it doctrine that it won't be
    official until the next "major" Python release, it will encourage
    those who are able, to just make the jump to 3.0, while those who
    cannot will have the subtle pressure to make the shift, however
    gradual. Additionally, it will give the community further incentive
    to make Python3 all that it was intended to be. Personally, the
    timing of v3 prevented me from fully participating in that effort,
    and, not ignoring the work of those who did contribute, I think many
    of us feel that it has not reached its potential.

    Just a small suggestion... .. .

    marcos
    --
    http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
    I disagree. 2.7 should go GA as soon as the developers deemed it stable.

    Those who don't need 3rd party packages will no doubt migrate to 3.x. Those
    that required 3rd party packages not yet ported to 3.x will want to use 2.7.
    Delaying 2.7 from GA doesn't change the reality. I myself would want to
    use back ported features from 2.7 as a way to prepare for migration as soon
    as those 3rd party packages are ported to 3.x.

    Mel
    -------------- next part --------------
    An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
    URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20100410/a6dca520/attachment.html>
  • Anatoly techtonik at Apr 12, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 1:13 AM, average wrote:
    There are so many features taken from 3.0 that I fear that it will
    postpone its adoption interminably (it is, in practice, treated as
    "beta" software itself). ?By making it doctrine that it won't be
    official until the next "major" Python release, it will encourage
    those who are able, to just make the jump to 3.0, while those who
    cannot will have the subtle pressure to make the shift, however
    gradual.
    Additionally, it will give the community further incentive
    to make Python3 all that it was intended to be. ?Personally, the
    timing of v3 prevented me from fully participating in that effort,
    and, not ignoring the work of those who did contribute, I think many
    of us feel that it has not reached its potential.
    The same problem. For me it was possible to participate in standard
    library development only after Python Alphas with Windows binaries
    were released. I could test both new features and old bugs. Having a
    requirement that every developer should be able to compile binaries
    has an adverse effect on the quality of standard library.

    The absence of public Roadmap also makes it hard to judge the
    aforementioned "desired potential".
    It could be possible to compile a public list like
    http://dungeonhack.sourceforge.net/Roadmap

    I am afraid of two things with forthcoming Python releases.
    1. feature creeping
    2. feature missing
    And an overview of Python development in the form of release timer and
    roadmap will remove the remnants of fear and uncertainty and surely
    attract new people for sprints.

    Regardless of said above it is great to feel the hard work behind the
    scenes that makes new releases popping up. Thanks.
    --
    anatoly t.
  • Michael Ströder at Apr 10, 2010 at 10:45 pm

    average wrote:
    On behalf of the Python development team, I'm merry to announce the first beta
    release of Python 2.7.

    Python 2.7 is scheduled (by Guido and Python-dev) to be the last major version
    in the 2.x series. Though more major releases have not been absolutely ruled
    out, it's likely that the 2.7 release will an extended period of maintenance for
    the 2.x series.
    May I propose that the developers consider keeping this release *beta*
    until after the present Python moratorium? That is, don't let it be
    marked as *official* until after, say, Python 3.3.

    There are so many features taken from 3.0 that I fear that it will
    postpone its adoption interminably
    Whether 3.x is adopted by developers is IMO not influenced by the 2.7 release
    schedule. At least the effect is highly speculative. So please simply release
    2.7 when it's ready.

    Ciao, Michael.
  • Mensanator at Apr 10, 2010 at 11:47 pm

    On Apr 10, 5:45?pm, Michael Str?der wrote:
    average wrote:
    On behalf of the Python development team, I'm merry to announce the first beta
    release of Python 2.7.
    Python 2.7 is scheduled (by Guido and Python-dev) to be the last major version
    in the 2.x series. ?Though more major releases have not been absolutely ruled
    out, it's likely that the 2.7 release will an extended period of maintenance for
    the 2.x series.
    May I propose that the developers consider keeping this release *beta*
    until after the present Python moratorium? ?That is, don't let it be
    marked as *official* until after, say, Python 3.3.
    There are so many features taken from 3.0 that I fear that it will
    postpone its adoption interminably
    Whether 3.x is adopted by developers is IMO not influenced by the 2.7 release
    schedule. At least the effect is highly speculative. So please simply release
    2.7 when it's ready.
    3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed. As of now, it's
    seriously broken and unsuitable for production.
    Ciao, Michael.
  • Chris Rebert at Apr 11, 2010 at 12:15 am

    On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Mensanator wrote:
    On Apr 10, 5:45?pm, Michael Str?der wrote:
    average wrote:
    On behalf of the Python development team, I'm merry to announce the first beta
    release of Python 2.7.
    Python 2.7 is scheduled (by Guido and Python-dev) to be the last major version
    in the 2.x series. ?Though more major releases have not been absolutely ruled
    out, it's likely that the 2.7 release will an extended period of maintenance for
    the 2.x series.
    May I propose that the developers consider keeping this release *beta*
    until after the present Python moratorium? ?That is, don't let it be
    marked as *official* until after, say, Python 3.3.
    There are so many features taken from 3.0 that I fear that it will
    postpone its adoption interminably
    Whether 3.x is adopted by developers is IMO not influenced by the 2.7 release
    schedule. At least the effect is highly speculative. So please simply release
    2.7 when it's ready.
    3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed. As of now, it's
    seriously broken and unsuitable for production.
    In what ways do you consider it broken?

    Cheers,
    Chris
  • Mensanator at Apr 11, 2010 at 4:08 am

    On Apr 10, 7:15?pm, Chris Rebert wrote:
    On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Mensanator wrote:
    On Apr 10, 5:45?pm, Michael Str?der wrote:
    average wrote:
    On behalf of the Python development team, I'm merry to announce the first beta
    release of Python 2.7.
    Python 2.7 is scheduled (by Guido and Python-dev) to be the last major version
    in the 2.x series. ?Though more major releases have not been absolutely ruled
    out, it's likely that the 2.7 release will an extended period of maintenance for
    the 2.x series.
    May I propose that the developers consider keeping this release *beta*
    until after the present Python moratorium? ?That is, don't let it be
    marked as *official* until after, say, Python 3.3.
    There are so many features taken from 3.0 that I fear that it will
    postpone its adoption interminably
    Whether 3.x is adopted by developers is IMO not influenced by the 2.7 release
    schedule. At least the effect is highly speculative. So please simply release
    2.7 when it's ready.
    3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed. As of now, it's
    seriously broken and unsuitable for production.
    In what ways do you consider it broken?
    Issue 8093. Remarkably, this apparently hasn't been noticed before.
    I expect 2.7 will be around for a long time.
    Cheers,
    Chris- Hide quoted text -

    - Show quoted text -
  • Steven D'Aprano at Apr 11, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:08:44 -0700, Mensanator wrote:

    3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed. As of now, it's
    seriously broken and unsuitable for production.
    In what ways do you consider it broken?
    Issue 8093. Remarkably, this apparently hasn't been noticed before.
    I think that tells you that it's an unimportant bug that doesn't really
    effect many people much, and a million miles from implying that Python
    3.x is "seriously broken and unsuitable for production".

    I expect 2.7 will be around for a long time.
    As reported on the bug tracker, this bug effects Python 2.7 as well. It's
    possible this bug goes back to, what? Python 2.5? 2.4? 2.3? Older? Who
    knows?

    http://bugs.python.org/issue8093#msg102818

    In any case, IDLE is one IDE out of many, and not really up to
    professional quality -- it's clunky and ugly. It isn't Python, it is a
    tool written in Python.


    --
    Steven
  • Joaquin Abian at Apr 11, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    On Apr 11, 6:53?pm, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS- cybersource.com.au> wrote:

    In any case, IDLE is one IDE out of many, and not really up to
    professional quality -- it's clunky and ugly. It isn't Python, it is a
    tool written in Python.

    --
    Steven
    But this is a tool that is a part of the python distribution and often
    recommended to python beginners as their first IDE. So IDLE is
    responsible for the first impression on Python to many.
    If IDLE is considered as of low quality and ugly, after so many years,
    why it is not fixed or replaced?.
    I'm just wondering.
    joaquin
  • Steven D'Aprano at Apr 11, 2010 at 11:01 pm

    On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:34:50 -0700, Joaquin Abian wrote:

    On Apr 11, 6:53?pm, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
    cybersource.com.au> wrote:
    In any case, IDLE is one IDE out of many, and not really up to
    professional quality -- it's clunky and ugly. It isn't Python, it is a
    tool written in Python.

    --
    Steven
    But this is a tool that is a part of the python distribution and often
    recommended to python beginners as their first IDE. So IDLE is
    responsible for the first impression on Python to many. If IDLE is
    considered as of low quality and ugly, after so many years, why it is
    not fixed or replaced?.
    I'm just wondering.
    Which toolset should the IDE target? Native Windows? QT? Gnome? Cocoa?
    Something else? That will require a widget library. How many widget
    libraries should Python ship with? Two? Three? Five? Which ones?
    wxPython? PythonCard? Something else? They tend to be very large. Do the
    Python developers then become responsible for fixing bugs in the widget
    libraries?

    Python ships with, at most, a single GUI toolset, tkinter, which targets
    the Tcl/Tk toolkit. Consider it the lowest common denominator of modern
    GUIs, although I hear that Tk now supports native widgets. But that still
    requires work. See here:

    http://stackoverflow.com/questions/349409/why-are-tk-guis-considered-ugly

    But what it really comes down to is time and effort. GUI design is hard,
    and unless somebody volunteers to make IDLE look and feel better, it
    isn't going to just upgrade itself.


    --
    Steven
  • Mensanator at Apr 11, 2010 at 6:54 pm

    On Apr 11, 11:53?am, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS- cybersource.com.au> wrote:
    On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:08:44 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
    3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed. As of now, it's
    seriously broken and unsuitable for production.
    In what ways do you consider it broken?
    Issue 8093. Remarkably, this apparently hasn't been noticed before.
    I think that tells you that it's an unimportant bug that doesn't really
    effect many people much,
    It affects me ... a LOT.
    and a million miles from implying that Python
    3.x is "seriously broken and unsuitable for production".
    Maybe because I'm a user, not a developer.
    I expect 2.7 will be around for a long time.
    As reported on the bug tracker, this bug effects Python 2.7 as well. It's
    possible this bug goes back to, what? Python 2.5? 2.4? 2.3? Older? Who
    knows?
    I can't imagine my not having noticed this before.
    It's plausible I might not have noticed the runaway
    processes, but the fact that I can't eject a USB
    drive would have been very obvious.
    http://bugs.python.org/issue8093#msg102818

    In any case, IDLE is one IDE out of many, and not really up to
    professional quality -- it's clunky and ugly. It isn't Python, it is a
    tool written in Python.
    You have no idea what the cause is, yet you're
    certain that the symptom is confined to IDLE.

    That's the kind of thinking that leads to such
    bugs in the first place.
    --
    Steven
  • Steven D'Aprano at Apr 11, 2010 at 11:08 pm

    On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:54:04 -0700, Mensanator wrote:

    On Apr 11, 11:53?am, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
    cybersource.com.au> wrote:
    On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:08:44 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
    3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed. As of now,
    it's seriously broken and unsuitable for production.
    In what ways do you consider it broken?
    Issue 8093. Remarkably, this apparently hasn't been noticed before.
    I think that tells you that it's an unimportant bug that doesn't really
    effect many people much,
    It affects me ... a LOT.
    I suspect you're exaggerating, but even if you're not, you are not the
    entire Python community. You stated that "3.x won't be adopted by
    developers until it's fixed". It sounds like what you really mean was
    "3.x won't be adopted by *me* until it's fixed".

    3.x is already being adopted by developers. The two biggest factors
    slowing uptake of 3.x are: (1) lack of big libraries like numpy, and (2)
    that major Linux distros still ship with 2.6 or 2.5.


    and a million miles from implying that Python 3.x is "seriously broken
    and unsuitable for production".
    Maybe because I'm a user, not a developer.
    You write code. You use an Integrated DEVELOPMENT Environment. That makes
    you a developer.


    I expect 2.7 will be around for a long time.
    As reported on the bug tracker, this bug effects Python 2.7 as well.
    It's possible this bug goes back to, what? Python 2.5? 2.4? 2.3? Older?
    Who knows?
    I can't imagine my not having noticed this before. It's plausible I
    might not have noticed the runaway processes, but the fact that I can't
    eject a USB drive would have been very obvious.
    Have you tried to reproduce it on 2.6 or 2.5? Unless you actively try to
    reproduce it, you can't assume it doesn't occur.


    http://bugs.python.org/issue8093#msg102818

    In any case, IDLE is one IDE out of many, and not really up to
    professional quality -- it's clunky and ugly. It isn't Python, it is a
    tool written in Python.
    You have no idea what the cause is, yet you're certain that the symptom
    is confined to IDLE.
    Certain? Of course not. But given an issue that is reported with a single
    application, which is more likely? That it is a bug in the language, or a
    bug in the application?

    Even if it is a bug in the language, some fundamental failure of the
    underlying Python virtual machine or built-in objects, there are dozens
    of standard library modules, and thousands of third-party modules, that
    it doesn't affect.

    That's the kind of thinking that leads to such bugs in the first place.
    Riiiight.



    --
    Steven
  • Mensanator at Apr 12, 2010 at 5:57 am

    On Apr 11, 6:08?pm, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS- cybersource.com.au> wrote:
    On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:54:04 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
    On Apr 11, 11:53 am, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
    cybersource.com.au> wrote:
    On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:08:44 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
    3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed. As of now,
    it's seriously broken and unsuitable for production.
    In what ways do you consider it broken?
    Issue 8093. Remarkably, this apparently hasn't been noticed before.
    I think that tells you that it's an unimportant bug that doesn't really
    effect many people much,
    It affects ?me ... a LOT.
    I suspect you're exaggerating,
    I'm not. I often use a USB drive to store my source programs, makes it
    easy to switch between computers. Not being able to eject the USB
    drive
    is annoying, but not a game breaker. Likewise, I usually don't shut
    down
    when I leave work, so I can't allow orphaned processes to accumulate
    eating up CPU and memory.
    but even if you're not, you are not the entire Python community.
    This is probably happening to everyone, they just haven't noticed.
    You stated that "3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed".
    It sounds like what you really mean was
    "3.x won't be adopted by *me* until it's fixed"
    Not at all. The only 3rd party library I use is gmpy, and that's been
    updated, so I have more or less abandoned 2.x in favor of 3.x. I have
    not installed the latest 2.6 version and have no intention of ever
    installing 2.7
    .
    3.x is already being adopted by developers.
    Let's hope a little thing like this won't upset them.
    The two biggest factors
    slowing uptake of 3.x are: (1) lack of big libraries like numpy, and (2)
    that major Linux distros still ship with 2.6 or 2.5.
    It was even worse with Mac OSX 10.6. Luckily, there's macports, so it
    all got resolved.
    and a million miles from implying that Python 3.x is "seriously broken
    and unsuitable for production".
    Maybe because I'm a user, not a developer.
    You write code. You use an Integrated DEVELOPMENT Environment. That makes
    you a developer.
    Being a little pedantic here, aren't we? Would it help if I said
    "professional"
    developer? After all, just because I dabble in Collatz Conjecture
    research as
    a hobby, it doesn't give me the right to go around calling myself a
    mathematician.
    I expect 2.7 will be around for a long time.
    As reported on the bug tracker, this bug effects Python 2.7 as well.
    It's possible this bug goes back to, what? Python 2.5? 2.4? 2.3? Older?
    Who knows?
    I can't imagine my not having noticed this before. It's plausible I
    might not have noticed the runaway processes, but the fact that I can't
    eject a USB drive would have been very obvious.
    Have you tried to reproduce it on 2.6 or 2.5?
    No, all I can say is I haven't noticed it there. And given the
    symptoms,
    I can't see how I could have not noticed it.

    On the other hand, I can't see how it could have gone unnoticed on
    3.x.

    You don't suppose I'm the only one actually using 3.1?
    Unless you actively try to
    reproduce it, you can't assume it doesn't occur.
    True, just as you can't assume I'm the only one it's happening to.
    In any case, IDLE is one IDE out of many, and not really up to
    professional quality -- it's clunky and ugly. It isn't Python, it is a
    tool written in Python.
    You have no idea what the cause is, yet you're certain that the symptom
    is confined to IDLE.
    Certain? Of course not. But given an issue that is reported with a single
    application, which is more likely? That it is a bug in the language, or a
    bug in the application?
    *I* never said the LANGUAGE was broken. I specifically made reference
    to the
    Windows implementation of 3.1.2.
    Even if it is a bug in the language, some fundamental failure of the
    underlying Python virtual machine or built-in objects, there are dozens
    of standard library modules, and thousands of third-party modules, that
    it doesn't affect.
    I assume you mean when not run in IDLE. And how do you know they're
    not
    affected? Didn't you just get done yelling at me for not testing it in
    2.5 & 2.6?
    That's the kind of thinking that leads to such bugs in the first place.
    Riiiight.
    You think these bugs are done deliberately?
    --
    Steven
  • Martin P. Hellwig at Apr 12, 2010 at 6:16 am

    On 04/12/10 06:57, Mensanator wrote:
    On Apr 11, 6:08 pm, Steven D'Aprano<st... at REMOVE-THIS-
    cybersource.com.au> wrote:
    On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:54:04 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
    On Apr 11, 11:53 am, Steven D'Aprano<st... at REMOVE-THIS-
    cybersource.com.au> wrote:
    On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:08:44 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
    <cut>
    Maybe because I'm a user, not a developer.
    You write code. You use an Integrated DEVELOPMENT Environment. That makes
    you a developer.
    Being a little pedantic here, aren't we? Would it help if I said
    "professional"
    developer? After all, just because I dabble in Collatz Conjecture
    research as
    a hobby, it doesn't give me the right to go around calling myself a
    mathematician.
    <cut>
    <really pedantic state='on'>
    Well professional in IT context often just means that you do it for a
    living, doesn't necessarly say you are any good in what you are doing.
    I am especially wary to certified professionals by biased 'institutes'
    like Cisco and Microsoft. </really pedantic>

    --
    mph
  • Terry Reedy at Apr 12, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    On 4/12/2010 1:57 AM, Mensanator wrote:
    Likewise, I usually don't shut down
    when I leave work, so I can't allow orphaned processes to accumulate
    eating up CPU and memory.
    So don't.

    Orphaned processes only accumulate when you use Restart Shell to abandon
    a process stuck in an infinite loop. I personally very seldom do that.
    Otherwise, the old process dies in a few seconds and the number of
    pythonw processes drops back down from 3 to the normal 2.


    As I already said, either roboot or use TaskManager to kill such
    zombies. When I had a unix desktop machine, I routinely used the command
    line equivalents ps (process status) and kill to do the same thing.

    Terry Jan Reedy
  • Lie Ryan at Apr 12, 2010 at 4:33 am

    On 04/12/10 04:54, Mensanator wrote:
    On Apr 11, 11:53?am, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
    cybersource.com.au> wrote:
    On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:08:44 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
    3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed. As of now, it's
    seriously broken and unsuitable for production.
    In what ways do you consider it broken?
    Issue 8093. Remarkably, this apparently hasn't been noticed before.
    I think that tells you that it's an unimportant bug that doesn't really
    effect many people much,
    It affects me ... a LOT.
    One way to fix it, dump tkinter and IDLE.

    C/C++ is not broken since they do not ship with an ugly GUI library or
    half-assed IDE called IDLE. Why should python ship with them?

    On a second thought, let me think about it again.
  • Mensanator at Apr 12, 2010 at 5:02 am

    On Apr 11, 11:33?pm, Lie Ryan wrote:
    On 04/12/10 04:54, Mensanator wrote:

    On Apr 11, 11:53 am, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
    cybersource.com.au> wrote:
    On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:08:44 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
    3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed. As of now, it's
    seriously broken and unsuitable for production.
    In what ways do you consider it broken?
    Issue 8093. Remarkably, this apparently hasn't been noticed before.
    I think that tells you that it's an unimportant bug that doesn't really
    effect many people much,
    It affects ?me ... a LOT.
    One way to fix it, dump tkinter and IDLE.
    Of course, that doesn't fix the problem, does it?

    You think the right thing to do is just quietly work
    around the problem and sit back and laugh knowing sooner
    or later someone else will get burned by it?

    And here I thought I was making a contribution by discovering
    something that no one else noticed.
    C/C++ is not broken since they do not ship with an ugly GUI library or
    half-assed IDE called IDLE.
    Why do you guys think I'm talking about the language? I'm talking
    about
    a particular implementation.
    Why should python ship with them?

    On a second thought, let me think about it again.
    Yeah, you certainly don't want to get yelled at by Mr. D'Aprano.
  • Alex23 at Apr 12, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Mensanator wrote:
    You think the right thing to do is just quietly work
    around the problem and sit back and laugh knowing sooner
    or later someone else will get burned by it?
    Haven't we covered argument from fallacy enough in this group by now?

    Reporting the bug was exactly the right thing to do. Loudly
    pronouncing the impending demise of 3.x because of it was not. Coming
    up with exaggerated parodies of arguments that no one here is actually
    making is even worse.
    Why do you guys think I'm talking about the language? I'm talking
    about a particular implementation.
    Probably because _you_ made no such restriction with your blanket
    statement of "3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed". If
    only "under Windows", "probably" and "IDLE" had been injected into it,
    I don't think there would have been a word of disagreement.
  • Mensanator at Apr 12, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    On Apr 12, 3:51?am, alex23 wrote:
    Mensanator wrote:
    You think the right thing to do is just quietly work
    around the problem and sit back and laugh knowing sooner
    or later someone else will get burned by it?
    Haven't we covered argument from fallacy enough in this group by now?

    Reporting the bug was exactly the right thing to do. Loudly
    pronouncing the impending demise of 3.x because of it was not. Coming
    up with exaggerated parodies of arguments that no one here is actually
    making is even worse.
    Why do you guys think I'm talking about the language? I'm talking
    about a particular implementation.
    Probably because _you_ made no such restriction with your blanket
    statement of "3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed". If
    only "under Windows", "probably" and "IDLE" had been injected into it,
    I don't think there would have been a word of disagreement.
    Ok. If more people are aware of the issue now, then the hyperbole
    has served it's purpose.
  • Terry Reedy at Apr 11, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    On 4/11/2010 12:08 AM, Mensanator wrote:
    On Apr 10, 7:15?pm, Chris Rebertwrote:
    On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Mensanatorwrote:
    3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed. As of now, it's
    seriously broken and unsuitable for production.
    Not. Many though will wait until 3.2 and greater library availability,
    which *is* coming.
    In what ways do you consider it broken?
    Issue 8093.
    IDLE is not Python. And are you really sure this is 3.x-only problem or
    that it is not a Windows-only problem.
    Remarkably, this apparently hasn't been noticed before.
    Because it requires somewhat rare circumstances. Start an infinite loop
    from IDLE, perhaps specifically on Windows. Try to restart. Patiently
    wait for restart to happen (several seconds, and iffy) instead of
    killing the runaway process from TaskManager.
    I expect 2.7 will be around for a long time.
    That was always expected independently of this issue.

    Terry Jan Reedy
  • Mensanator at Apr 11, 2010 at 7:32 pm

    On Apr 11, 12:00?pm, Terry Reedy wrote:
    On 4/11/2010 12:08 AM, Mensanator wrote:

    On Apr 10, 7:15 pm, Chris Rebert<c... at rebertia.com> ?wrote:
    On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Mensanator<mensana... at aol.com> ?wrote:
    3.x won't be adopted by developers until it's fixed. As of now, it's
    seriously broken and unsuitable for production.
    Not. Many though will wait until 3.2 and greater library availability,
    which *is* coming.
    Which comes first, library availability or
    a working system?
    In what ways do you consider it broken?
    Issue 8093.
    IDLE is not Python.
    The Task Manager doesn't say "IDLE", it says "pytonw".
    And are you really sure this is 3.x-only problem
    No, I didn't say it was, just that that's where
    I noticed it. I haven't been using the latest 2.x
    upgrades because I switched to 3.x.
    or
    that it is not a Windows-only problem.
    Could very well be. But when YOU target a specific
    operating system, isn't the onus on YOU to make it
    work within that system? If you're not content to
    be a big fish in a small pond, then you better
    figure out a way to make it work.
    Remarkably, this apparently hasn't been noticed before.
    Because it requires somewhat rare circumstances. Start an infinite loop
    from IDLE, perhaps specifically on Windows. Try to restart. Patiently
    wait for restart to happen (several seconds, and iffy)
    Not iffy at all. If it responds to the menu and I can
    click on Restart, it succeeds.
    instead of
    killing the runaway process from TaskManager.
    Why on earth would I want to do that? Then I lose
    the entire history of whats printed in the window.
    You've got a serious problem if you expect the
    TaskManager to be used for normal operations.
    I expect 2.7 will be around for a long time.
    That was always expected independently of this issue.
    I hear 2.7 doesn't work either. I'll back off on that
    comment.
    Terry Jan Reedy
  • Alex23 at Apr 11, 2010 at 4:51 am

    Mensanator wrote:
    3.x won't be adopted by WINDOWS developers WHO USE IDLE until it's fixed.
    I think you left your hyperbole level too high so I turned it down for
    you. I don't know of _anyone_ who uses IDLE to run production code,
    nor do I follow how one errant IDE shows that Python 3.x as a language
    is broken.
  • Mensanator at Apr 11, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    On Apr 10, 11:51?pm, alex23 wrote:
    Mensanator wrote:
    3.x won't be adopted by WINDOWS developers WHO USE IDLE until it's fixed.
    I think you left your hyperbole level too high so I turned it down for
    you. I don't know of _anyone_ who uses IDLE to run production code,
    nor do I follow how one errant IDE shows that Python 3.x as a language
    is broken.
    Planning to buy a Toyota?
  • Alex23 at Apr 11, 2010 at 11:44 pm

    Mensanator wrote:
    Planning to buy a Toyota?
    Did we just start playing Questions?
  • Mark Lawrence at Apr 12, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    Mensanator wrote:
    On Apr 10, 11:51?pm, alex23 wrote:
    Mensanator wrote:
    3.x won't be adopted by WINDOWS developers WHO USE IDLE until it's fixed.
    I think you left your hyperbole level too high so I turned it down for
    you. I don't know of _anyone_ who uses IDLE to run production code,
    nor do I follow how one errant IDE shows that Python 3.x as a language
    is broken.
    Planning to buy a Toyota?
    No, on the grounds that I have an Enterprise Probike, which being chain
    driven is vastly superior to any gas guzzling petrol or diesel driven
    vehicle. Ok, it's slower, but it gets me there in the end.

    Mark Lawrence
  • Lennart Regebro at Apr 11, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 20:52, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
    On behalf of the Python development team, I'm merry
    <Imagines Benjamin dancing folkdances on tables full of food>
    to announce the first beta release of Python 2.7.
    Cool!

    --
    Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok
    http://regebro.wordpress.com/
    +33 661 58 14 64
  • Mensanator at Apr 12, 2010 at 8:36 pm

    On Apr 12, 11:39?am, Terry Reedy wrote:
    On 4/12/2010 1:57 AM, Mensanator wrote:

    Likewise, I usually don't shut down
    when I leave work, so I can't allow orphaned processes to accumulate
    eating up CPU and memory.
    So don't.
    I don't. I'm complaining about the need to do that.
    Orphaned processes only accumulate when you use Restart Shell to abandon
    a process stuck in an infinite loop.
    Surely, you don't expect me to beleive that Python
    has solved the halting problem and knows when its
    in an infinite loop? No, Restart Shell is used whenever
    the process is going to take longer than one is willing
    to wait.
    I personally very seldom do that.
    Otherwise, the old process dies in a few seconds and the number of
    pythonw processes drops back down from 3 to the normal 2.
    You've never written a program that takes more than a
    few seconds to execute? Wow.
    As I already said, either roboot or use TaskManager to kill such
    zombies.
    Do we need to add something to the documentation to explain
    this? Something along the lines of:

    "Python simply doesn't work properly. You must keep constant
    vigilance on the TaskKanager to watch for orphaned processes,
    otherwise they will consume all your CPU cycles and eat up your
    memory."?

    Maybe put it in large red letters under the caption
    "WARNING!"?
    When I had a unix desktop machine, I routinely used the command
    line equivalents ps (process status) and kill to do the same thing.
    No wonder you don't see the problem! You think it's normal!
    Terry Jan Reedy

Related Discussions

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase