headers
Phil Thompson | 4 Oct 01:25

Re: PyQt4 and Python 3.0

On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:42:53 -0700, Glenn Linderman <v+python <at> g.nevcal.com>
wrote:
> On approximately 10/3/2008 8:18 AM, came the following characters from 
> the keyboard of Phil Thompson:
>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 17:11:19 +0200, Detlev Offenbach
>> <detlev <at> die-offenbachs.de> wrote:
>>   
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> will there be PyQt4 support for Python 3.0 once it goes final?
>>>     
>>
>> Not straight away. I will take the opportunity to break backwards
>> compatibility (eg. removing QVariant, QString, QChar, QByteArray etc),
>> and
>> those changes will be made over a period of time. So it may be a while
>> before the API is stable enough for anything other than playing.
> 
> While these are excellent goals, and some of the other suggestions have 
> merit, know that there is interest.
> 
> Probably there are two classes of users; those wanting to port existing 
> applications, that would want to see "compatibility wrappers" for 
> existing code to allow a slow migration to the new APIs, and those that 
> are writing new applications, and would like to bypass all the "old
cruft".
> 
> My personal situation is that I have only recently begun writing my 
> first major PyQt application, using Python 2.5 and PyQt 4.  This will 
> take me "a while" also.  Depending on how long our "a while"s are, I
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Giovanni Bajo | 4 Oct 10:52
Favicon

Re: PyQt4 and Python 3.0

On sab, 2008-10-04 at 00:25 +0100, Phil Thompson wrote:

> On the other hand, if you did write it correctly in the first place
> (something I've never managed) PyQt4 for Python2 will be maintained
> for several years - certainly while new versions of Python2 are
> released.

This is good to know, since some people will not be willing to pay an
average 20% performance hit of Python 3.0 compared to Python 2.6.

I suggest you to document it on the website to reduce the number of
incoming questions in the next few years :)
--

-- 
Giovanni Bajo
Develer S.r.l.
http://www.develer.com
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Simon Edwards | 5 Oct 14:11

Re: PyQt4 and Python 3.0

Hello,

Phil Thompson wrote:
> Major transitions (Qt3 => Qt4, Python2 => Python3) should be considered as
> opportunities for rewrites. They should not be treated as "how can I get
> from one to the other with as few changes as possible".

I thought the way the Python guys handled Python 3 was very good. Just 
break what (really) needs to be broken and clear the way for future 
enhancements. Although porting of applications is still needed, they've 
stayed away from trivial and stylistic 'fixes' to Python and the libs 
which bring a lot more porting work for little real world gain. Things 
like changing the naming of classes and modules names etc fall into the 
stylistic change category in my book.

I hope Phil can stick to the really needed stuff. Porting stuff from 
Qt/KDE 3 to 4 has proven to be draining work which I hope to avoid 
having to do again in the near future.

cheers,

--

-- 
Simon Edwards             | KDE-NL, Guidance tools, Guarddog Firewall
simon <at> simonzone.com       | http://www.simonzone.com/software/
Nijmegen, The Netherlands | "ZooTV? You made the right choice."
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Phil Thompson | 5 Oct 14:22

Re: PyQt4 and Python 3.0

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:11:45 +0200, Simon Edwards <simon <at> simonzone.com>
wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Phil Thompson wrote:
>> Major transitions (Qt3 => Qt4, Python2 => Python3) should be considered
>> as
>> opportunities for rewrites. They should not be treated as "how can I get
>> from one to the other with as few changes as possible".
> 
> I thought the way the Python guys handled Python 3 was very good. Just 
> break what (really) needs to be broken and clear the way for future 
> enhancements. Although porting of applications is still needed, they've 
> stayed away from trivial and stylistic 'fixes' to Python and the libs 
> which bring a lot more porting work for little real world gain. Things 
> like changing the naming of classes and modules names etc fall into the 
> stylistic change category in my book.

I completely agree.

> I hope Phil can stick to the really needed stuff. Porting stuff from 
> Qt/KDE 3 to 4 has proven to be draining work which I hope to avoid 
> having to do again in the near future.

Which is why I say don't port, rewrite.

Phil
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane