Doesn't sound like "because other projects have exceeded US goals", does it?
The project was halted before they could start with some really good optimizations - which Pypy already does.. Go read the mailing lists. No one picked it up because other efforts had already progressed. Which raised the question, why continue US. Google dropped the project, thus killing it. Pypy has been far ahead of it for a while now. Why pick up US, which has a litany of issues (watch the video), when Pypy is already far, far ahead. The rest of what you said is what I said. There really isn't any deviation from what I said so I'm really no sure what you're picking at.
In short, my summation was completely accurate and well supported by lots of public videos and mailing list discussion.
Well, for a while it was Un-American to know info about Russian stuff.
Even more so, the Russians filtered everything and propagandized what was released through the iron curtain. It wasn't even until the 1980s that people had a chance to really learn the history of the Russian space program.
And according to recent books and documentaries by Nova, some of that isn't truly accurate either.
True, but no sane person would argue this is the latter, yet the law treats it as such.
I don't believe you are correct. In fact, the inverse appears to be true.
If you develop a universe full of characters and then I come along and take that and tell a story, or worse, retell your story, most people absolutely will have a problem with that; especially you.
Now if you create a unique universe with unique characters which are simply inspired by some of my works, most everyone will agree everyone benefits. That is, in fact, more or less how things work today; aside from a few nut jobs like Lucas.
Imagine other authors coming in a diluting the Harry Potter franchise. That alone could have prevented the creation of all of her other books. How many other works have been created and yet inspired, because they couldn't rip off Harry Potter?
Most any shared linux host is going to support the latest python - regardless of them stating it or not. Period. Furthermore, most who actually care about customer support are more than happy to install on request if you feel you MUST have a non-localized installation.
At this point, the bogus hosting horse has been beat to death and every time you mention it, you're only further beating the other horse which clearly indicates you are an absolute idiot.
Is your life really so completely without meaning and so completely empty that trolling is the only past time you have available? That's rhetorical. I honestly don't care; aside from the fact that myself and others have wasted time reading your trolling stupidity.
Of course everything is ultimately derivative. Just the same, there is a huge difference between vaguely derivative and wholesale usurpation. Its the difference between inspiration and claiming another's works as you're own.
The problem with SMART is that many drive failures do not create SMART warnings. Furthermore, warnings are not necessaries indicative of pending drive failure. SMART, while better than nothing, is just barely so.
Holy shit you're stupid. You can't even continue with you're same line of argument. The original argument was about legacy hosting. Now you change it to future hosting.
Simply put, find any host which allows for shell access. Once you have that, you're done.
There's a little bit of revisionist history going on in your post but I don't get the impression that's by intent.
Ah, denial. Some major modules that aren't making the transition:
That was a silly thing for him to say. Clearly some modules are not actively being ported. That, however, doesn't mean they won't or can't.
The major changes required to move to Python 3.x are non-trivial and aren't being done
Very much over stating the difficulty. There has already been a number of porting sprints. In a number of cases, rather large frameworks have been ported over a weekend. By in large, the porting effort actually is extremely trivial and frequently, the automated tools can complete 90-95% of the port by themselves. Really, the ports which tend to be problematic are the ones with large, legacy code bases. These are non-trivial not because of their size, but because of the porting effort in of themselves is a function of line count.
In some cases, there are newer, completely different modules with different APIs that perform the old functions. So end users have to do a major rewrite on production programs just to stay in the same place.
Could you be more specific. I'm actually drawing a blank here. Its true some functions/classes have been moved to other packages. Most of the time its as simple as changing an import or a namespace prefix associated with a function call. Again, most of the tedium is addressed by means of the automated porting tools. And if you do have examples, please offer up why such an example affects such a wide breath of existing code its more than a corner case.
It's a huge transition.
Again, you're way overstating the problem.
Guido has this smoke-and-mirrors pitch claiming that it's "done". That's because the Python organization, such as it is, disclaims all responsibility for getting modules ported. So it's not his problem that it sucks.
Trollish and red herring in nature. Not really applicable to the discussion at hand. So now Guido is responsible for all python code which has ever been written. Such a statement is silliness at best.
None of the non-CPython implementations are making the transition.
This has what to do with anything? And how many dozens of people really care?
Not IronPython (abandoned by Microsoft).
So now a port of python that no one used is a significant weight preventing the adoption of the latest python release? Completely rediculas. If anything, it further underscores the stupidity of IronPython and MS' mind-share-gimick-marketing rather than serving as a detracting for python migration. Bluntly, I'm sure IronPython's three users are really upset that they made such woefully bad decisions to adopt IronPython (contrary to the rest of the world's warnings and MS' very long associated history).
Not Shed Skin (only one developer).
That's because he's one developer and doesn't have the man power. Its not that he won't, rather, its that he is simply one man. Furthermore, Shed Skin is a niche product. Its neat and all, but it has a long way to go before, frankly, anyone other than that one developer really gives a crap about it. Don't get me wrong, its a cool tool, but I won't use it for production. Hell, most python developers don't even know about it. And when they do, they tend to think of it as an experimental toy. Seemingly, the author sees it this way too. So again, not a detractor for Python 3.x in the least. You're being silly.
Not even Google's own Unladen Swallow is moving to Python 2.6, (Google seems to have abandoned Unladen Swallow after discovering that Guido's insistence on excessively dynamic features meant a JIT compiler didn't speed it up much.)
Completely wrong and extremely trollish in nature. Unladen Swal
# This works with any python installation rather than only the system installation. # Using explicit path to system's python install is bad practice. Requiring a source change to run your application with a different VM is silly. Now we need only change our path. #!/usr/bin/env python3 import urllib
I don't know its status, but at best panda is a niche package.
Besides, as things finally reach critical mass with the python 3.x series, as is just now starting to happen, its momentum will naturally pick up other packages along the way. The feature set in the 3.x series is already become very attractive, over that of the 2.x series. Its gravitational pull from new features is only going to build over time.
If only you had any clue whatsoever about the topic at hand - then you might have a legitimate point. Finding such shared hosts today is trivially easy and is becoming easier every day. And that's presumes one must compile, which is an extremely iffy assumption. Furthermore, installation does not require root privileges.
Re:Another great Python 3.x series release
on
Python 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Yes, $10.00/month is horribly expensive and common and is becoming more and more common every day.
You do realize its trivially easy to find hosting which allows you to install your own languages?
Python does not require root access to install. Not to mention, python's virtualenv makes installing, configuring, and carrying your custom python environment and dependencies to other hosts trivial.
They also recently created a PEP which formalizes gateway interfaces for byte and unicode support which means all of the larger python web frameworks are finally lifting anchor and heading toward 3.x waters.
In the next few years, we'll definitely see a huge uptake in the 3.x series.
Really the question is, how much with pypy be able to absorb from the current cpython 2.x community and when will it take on a 3.x persona.
I don't understand how this Py3k praising always gets such good moderation on/.
Well, that's because you just don't understand. Period.
Python 3 has left the original focus of the language as something simple and easy to use. All the changes are towards a MORE COMPLEX language, I see no change that makes it simpler to use, no change that requires less code than the former version.
That's a mouth full but only shows you not only don't understand, but haven't bothered to even look. In what way are things more complex? You mean by adding more language features with easier syntax (example, comprehensions), things are harder? You mean by creating more explicit and less confusing exception handling, things are harder? You mean by adding additional features to support threading concurrently things are harder? You mean by improving threading concurrency, things are harder? You mean by cleaning up, simplifying, and making consistent name spaces and packages, things are harder?
Its pretty clear you're trolling and not made any effort whatsoever to actually learn whats in the 3.x series, let alone the 3.2 release.
Re:Another great Python 3.x series release
on
Python 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 0
So in other words, hope that you can find a compatible version years down the road that you can give to your clients.
Yes, its known as downloading and/or compiling. Dumbass.
If this were commercially driven software you *might* have an inkling of a legitimate point. But since this is community software where the source snapshots, the entire development source tree, and binaries for a variety of platforms, is available to all, such comments are flat out stupid.
Oh no! I might have trouble obtaining what is readily available from any computer with an Internet connection. Oh no!
In what world of delusion does preventing on author from ripping off another author stop creation of new works. By definition, it absolutely mandates the creation of new works because you can't just go around ripping off other author's works. Meaning, you are FORCED to create new works or nothing at all. Why is obviousness and reality so hard for some to see.
So tired of this ignorant rhetoric which constantly permeates slashdot these days.
The idiocy of such claims is extremely profound. You're basically arguing that you should do all the world and your co-workers should be entitled to reap all the benefits, including bonuses, raises, and advancement. Sorry, but that's down right stupid.
Re:Another great Python 3.x series release
on
Python 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
That's the classic red herring argument.
In five or ten years from now, the python VM of the particular python on which you've built your application is extremely likely to still function and at worst can be compiled. Furthermore, python specifically allows for multiple concurrent python installations. Furthermore, by in large, python is forward compatible between major releases. So the hand waving you're doing is just that...not an issue in the least.
It may surprising many people who think along the same lines as you, but just because python 3.2 has been released doesn't suddenly mean python 2.5, 2.6, or 2.7 has disappeared from the face of the earth. Nor does it mean releases in the 2.x series are suddenly unsupported. Furthermore, python 2.7 specifically exists to creating a VM for migrations. It allows you to play with some of 3.x's features while maintaining 2.x compatibility. This means if staying at or nearly at current python VM development, an easy (or at least a much easier) migration path exists.
Lastly, lets not forget that compatibility is not broken on a daily basis. Which means, if you want compatibility with 2.x you're going to stay on 2.x. If 3.x features are important to you, a minor port is likely. And that completely ignores that automated tools have been created which performs much if not most of the work for you. Plus, once you're o 3.x, chances are extremely high compatibility won't be an issue throughout the 3.x series.
So really, there isn't the least bit validity to you complaint - despite it being a common misconception.
Wrong. Slashdot has even covered several articles which talk about the gory details of how you're wrong just on the surface, even without getting into the fact that congestion controls work because it slows traffic down. Holy shit, where do you get you're information. How the fuck do you think congestion is avoided if it doesn't slow things down? That's a rhetorical question. I know the answer - obviously you don't.
Feel free to actually say something which isn't completely stupidity. Please explain why anything I said is invalid and I'll continue to engage your lunacy.
Face it, ignorance, stupidity, and completely unjustified paranoia is not the basis for a rational discussion - and yet that's the entire basis of your debate.
Seriously, if you have anything to offer, let's see. If its more baseless stupidity, just shut the fuck up and listen to the people who actually know what the fuck we're talking about.
There is a difference between filtering and shaping. Filtering prevents the delivery. Shaping simply delays the delivery. The first is bad. The second, if used correctly, as the article outlines, is very, very, very, very, very, very good.
So yes, filter is a NN issue but in this case, there is absolutely no reason to presume filter is the least bit topical. As such, attempting to bring in NN into the discussion is nothing but a red herring.
What a troll. Its extremely unreasonable. Using your cost model, if an artist received 20,000 plays in a year, he made $200. He can't even pay rent for a month on that. Now, who's being greedy!
Small bands may be lucky to see a couple thousand plays in a month. You basically just ensured the band self destructed. Furthermore, you are arguing that the purchase of the song should cost hundreds if not thousands, and possibly tens of thousands each.
People, please come back from the land of unicorns and fairies and face reality that LOTS of people ONLY have a job because of copyrights and fair market valuation. And that by pirating or otherwise devaluing their work (as in above), in many cases, you are effectively destroying the artist's livelihood while concurrently attempting to force some type of socialism on them.
You're conflating issues. I did not attempt to specifically validate their QoS scheme. All I said is its not only reasonable but all but impossible for them not to be pushing BT on the bottom of the QoS pile.
In fact, in other posts, I even offer QoS prioritization likely differs from ISP to ISP. And of course, the quality of the QoS configuration is likely to differ greatly. Regardless, none of that should be conflated with Net Neutrality issues nor the general desire to place BT at extremely low priorities.
Get back to me when you're willing to pay and ORDER OF MAGNITUDE OR TWO to account for your fantasy world. Until such time, stop trolling and shut up.
And yet, it does matter to me when someone's download, which is delayed five minutes prevents my VoIP call from functioning properly. And unless you're a liar, it matters to you too. So stop being a trolling, douche bag, hypocrite.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't sound like "because other projects have exceeded US goals", does it?
The project was halted before they could start with some really good optimizations - which Pypy already does.. Go read the mailing lists. No one picked it up because other efforts had already progressed. Which raised the question, why continue US. Google dropped the project, thus killing it. Pypy has been far ahead of it for a while now. Why pick up US, which has a litany of issues (watch the video), when Pypy is already far, far ahead. The rest of what you said is what I said. There really isn't any deviation from what I said so I'm really no sure what you're picking at.
In short, my summation was completely accurate and well supported by lots of public videos and mailing list discussion.
Well, for a while it was Un-American to know info about Russian stuff.
Even more so, the Russians filtered everything and propagandized what was released through the iron curtain. It wasn't even until the 1980s that people had a chance to really learn the history of the Russian space program.
And according to recent books and documentaries by Nova, some of that isn't truly accurate either.
True, but no sane person would argue this is the latter, yet the law treats it as such.
I don't believe you are correct. In fact, the inverse appears to be true.
If you develop a universe full of characters and then I come along and take that and tell a story, or worse, retell your story, most people absolutely will have a problem with that; especially you.
Now if you create a unique universe with unique characters which are simply inspired by some of my works, most everyone will agree everyone benefits. That is, in fact, more or less how things work today; aside from a few nut jobs like Lucas.
Imagine other authors coming in a diluting the Harry Potter franchise. That alone could have prevented the creation of all of her other books. How many other works have been created and yet inspired, because they couldn't rip off Harry Potter?
You're trolling. Period.
Most any shared linux host is going to support the latest python - regardless of them stating it or not. Period. Furthermore, most who actually care about customer support are more than happy to install on request if you feel you MUST have a non-localized installation.
At this point, the bogus hosting horse has been beat to death and every time you mention it, you're only further beating the other horse which clearly indicates you are an absolute idiot.
Is your life really so completely without meaning and so completely empty that trolling is the only past time you have available? That's rhetorical. I honestly don't care; aside from the fact that myself and others have wasted time reading your trolling stupidity.
Of course everything is ultimately derivative. Just the same, there is a huge difference between vaguely derivative and wholesale usurpation. Its the difference between inspiration and claiming another's works as you're own.
The problem with SMART is that many drive failures do not create SMART warnings. Furthermore, warnings are not necessaries indicative of pending drive failure. SMART, while better than nothing, is just barely so.
Holy shit you're stupid. You can't even continue with you're same line of argument. The original argument was about legacy hosting. Now you change it to future hosting.
Simply put, find any host which allows for shell access. Once you have that, you're done.
Troll.
There's a little bit of revisionist history going on in your post but I don't get the impression that's by intent.
Ah, denial. Some major modules that aren't making the transition:
That was a silly thing for him to say. Clearly some modules are not actively being ported. That, however, doesn't mean they won't or can't.
The major changes required to move to Python 3.x are non-trivial and aren't being done
Very much over stating the difficulty. There has already been a number of porting sprints. In a number of cases, rather large frameworks have been ported over a weekend. By in large, the porting effort actually is extremely trivial and frequently, the automated tools can complete 90-95% of the port by themselves. Really, the ports which tend to be problematic are the ones with large, legacy code bases. These are non-trivial not because of their size, but because of the porting effort in of themselves is a function of line count.
In some cases, there are newer, completely different modules with different APIs that perform the old functions. So end users have to do a major rewrite on production programs just to stay in the same place.
Could you be more specific. I'm actually drawing a blank here. Its true some functions/classes have been moved to other packages. Most of the time its as simple as changing an import or a namespace prefix associated with a function call. Again, most of the tedium is addressed by means of the automated porting tools. And if you do have examples, please offer up why such an example affects such a wide breath of existing code its more than a corner case.
It's a huge transition.
Again, you're way overstating the problem.
Guido has this smoke-and-mirrors pitch claiming that it's "done". That's because the Python organization, such as it is, disclaims all responsibility for getting modules ported. So it's not his problem that it sucks.
Trollish and red herring in nature. Not really applicable to the discussion at hand. So now Guido is responsible for all python code which has ever been written. Such a statement is silliness at best.
None of the non-CPython implementations are making the transition.
This has what to do with anything? And how many dozens of people really care?
Not IronPython (abandoned by Microsoft).
So now a port of python that no one used is a significant weight preventing the adoption of the latest python release? Completely rediculas. If anything, it further underscores the stupidity of IronPython and MS' mind-share-gimick-marketing rather than serving as a detracting for python migration. Bluntly, I'm sure IronPython's three users are really upset that they made such woefully bad decisions to adopt IronPython (contrary to the rest of the world's warnings and MS' very long associated history).
Not Shed Skin (only one developer).
That's because he's one developer and doesn't have the man power. Its not that he won't, rather, its that he is simply one man. Furthermore, Shed Skin is a niche product. Its neat and all, but it has a long way to go before, frankly, anyone other than that one developer really gives a crap about it. Don't get me wrong, its a cool tool, but I won't use it for production. Hell, most python developers don't even know about it. And when they do, they tend to think of it as an experimental toy. Seemingly, the author sees it this way too. So again, not a detractor for Python 3.x in the least. You're being silly.
Not even Google's own Unladen Swallow is moving to Python 2.6, (Google seems to have abandoned Unladen Swallow after discovering that Guido's insistence on excessively dynamic features meant a JIT compiler didn't speed it up much.)
Completely wrong and extremely trollish in nature. Unladen Swal
That' exactly right. Statistically, most drive failures occur during boot.
# This works with any python installation rather than only the system installation.
# Using explicit path to system's python install is bad practice. Requiring a source change to run your application with a different VM is silly. Now we need only change our path.
#!/usr/bin/env python3
import urllib
stuff = ['news.google.com', 'grooveshark.com', 'youtube.com/failblog']
for i in stuff:
print( urllib.urlopen(i).read() )
Have a life? Fuck you troll! Pathetic.
I don't know its status, but at best panda is a niche package.
Besides, as things finally reach critical mass with the python 3.x series, as is just now starting to happen, its momentum will naturally pick up other packages along the way. The feature set in the 3.x series is already become very attractive, over that of the 2.x series. Its gravitational pull from new features is only going to build over time.
If only you had any clue whatsoever about the topic at hand - then you might have a legitimate point. Finding such shared hosts today is trivially easy and is becoming easier every day. And that's presumes one must compile, which is an extremely iffy assumption. Furthermore, installation does not require root privileges.
Yes, $10.00/month is horribly expensive and common and is becoming more and more common every day.
You do realize its trivially easy to find hosting which allows you to install your own languages?
Python does not require root access to install. Not to mention, python's virtualenv makes installing, configuring, and carrying your custom python environment and dependencies to other hosts trivial.
They also recently created a PEP which formalizes gateway interfaces for byte and unicode support which means all of the larger python web frameworks are finally lifting anchor and heading toward 3.x waters.
In the next few years, we'll definitely see a huge uptake in the 3.x series.
Really the question is, how much with pypy be able to absorb from the current cpython 2.x community and when will it take on a 3.x persona.
I don't understand how this Py3k praising always gets such good moderation on /.
Well, that's because you just don't understand. Period.
Python 3 has left the original focus of the language as something simple and easy to use. All the changes are towards a MORE COMPLEX language, I see no change that makes it simpler to use, no change that requires less code than the former version.
That's a mouth full but only shows you not only don't understand, but haven't bothered to even look. In what way are things more complex? You mean by adding more language features with easier syntax (example, comprehensions), things are harder? You mean by creating more explicit and less confusing exception handling, things are harder? You mean by adding additional features to support threading concurrently things are harder? You mean by improving threading concurrency, things are harder? You mean by cleaning up, simplifying, and making consistent name spaces and packages, things are harder?
Its pretty clear you're trolling and not made any effort whatsoever to actually learn whats in the 3.x series, let alone the 3.2 release.
So in other words, hope that you can find a compatible version years down the road that you can give to your clients.
Yes, its known as downloading and/or compiling. Dumbass.
If this were commercially driven software you *might* have an inkling of a legitimate point. But since this is community software where the source snapshots, the entire development source tree, and binaries for a variety of platforms, is available to all, such comments are flat out stupid.
Oh no! I might have trouble obtaining what is readily available from any computer with an Internet connection. Oh no!
In what world of delusion does preventing on author from ripping off another author stop creation of new works. By definition, it absolutely mandates the creation of new works because you can't just go around ripping off other author's works. Meaning, you are FORCED to create new works or nothing at all. Why is obviousness and reality so hard for some to see.
So tired of this ignorant rhetoric which constantly permeates slashdot these days.
The idiocy of such claims is extremely profound. You're basically arguing that you should do all the world and your co-workers should be entitled to reap all the benefits, including bonuses, raises, and advancement. Sorry, but that's down right stupid.
That's the classic red herring argument.
In five or ten years from now, the python VM of the particular python on which you've built your application is extremely likely to still function and at worst can be compiled. Furthermore, python specifically allows for multiple concurrent python installations. Furthermore, by in large, python is forward compatible between major releases. So the hand waving you're doing is just that...not an issue in the least.
It may surprising many people who think along the same lines as you, but just because python 3.2 has been released doesn't suddenly mean python 2.5, 2.6, or 2.7 has disappeared from the face of the earth. Nor does it mean releases in the 2.x series are suddenly unsupported. Furthermore, python 2.7 specifically exists to creating a VM for migrations. It allows you to play with some of 3.x's features while maintaining 2.x compatibility. This means if staying at or nearly at current python VM development, an easy (or at least a much easier) migration path exists.
Lastly, lets not forget that compatibility is not broken on a daily basis. Which means, if you want compatibility with 2.x you're going to stay on 2.x. If 3.x features are important to you, a minor port is likely. And that completely ignores that automated tools have been created which performs much if not most of the work for you. Plus, once you're o 3.x, chances are extremely high compatibility won't be an issue throughout the 3.x series.
So really, there isn't the least bit validity to you complaint - despite it being a common misconception.
One slows down HTTP traffic, the other does not.
Wrong. Slashdot has even covered several articles which talk about the gory details of how you're wrong just on the surface, even without getting into the fact that congestion controls work because it slows traffic down. Holy shit, where do you get you're information. How the fuck do you think congestion is avoided if it doesn't slow things down? That's a rhetorical question. I know the answer - obviously you don't.
Next.
Feel free to actually say something which isn't completely stupidity. Please explain why anything I said is invalid and I'll continue to engage your lunacy.
Face it, ignorance, stupidity, and completely unjustified paranoia is not the basis for a rational discussion - and yet that's the entire basis of your debate.
Seriously, if you have anything to offer, let's see. If its more baseless stupidity, just shut the fuck up and listen to the people who actually know what the fuck we're talking about.
There is a difference between filtering and shaping. Filtering prevents the delivery. Shaping simply delays the delivery. The first is bad. The second, if used correctly, as the article outlines, is very, very, very, very, very, very good.
So yes, filter is a NN issue but in this case, there is absolutely no reason to presume filter is the least bit topical. As such, attempting to bring in NN into the discussion is nothing but a red herring.
What a troll. Its extremely unreasonable. Using your cost model, if an artist received 20,000 plays in a year, he made $200. He can't even pay rent for a month on that. Now, who's being greedy!
Small bands may be lucky to see a couple thousand plays in a month. You basically just ensured the band self destructed. Furthermore, you are arguing that the purchase of the song should cost hundreds if not thousands, and possibly tens of thousands each.
People, please come back from the land of unicorns and fairies and face reality that LOTS of people ONLY have a job because of copyrights and fair market valuation. And that by pirating or otherwise devaluing their work (as in above), in many cases, you are effectively destroying the artist's livelihood while concurrently attempting to force some type of socialism on them.
You're conflating issues. I did not attempt to specifically validate their QoS scheme. All I said is its not only reasonable but all but impossible for them not to be pushing BT on the bottom of the QoS pile.
In fact, in other posts, I even offer QoS prioritization likely differs from ISP to ISP. And of course, the quality of the QoS configuration is likely to differ greatly. Regardless, none of that should be conflated with Net Neutrality issues nor the general desire to place BT at extremely low priorities.
Get back to me when you're willing to pay and ORDER OF MAGNITUDE OR TWO to account for your fantasy world. Until such time, stop trolling and shut up.
And yet, it does matter to me when someone's download, which is delayed five minutes prevents my VoIP call from functioning properly. And unless you're a liar, it matters to you too. So stop being a trolling, douche bag, hypocrite.