Is Python Mac Centric???
hokieghal99
that there are *a lot* of Mac only modules... more so than Unix and
Windows specific modules combined. Is there a reason for this? I am
familiar with the Windows extensions by Mr. Hammond and wonder if
they'll ever become apart of the official Python distribution. It looks
as if something similar already exists for Macs with all these Mac only
modules. Why is this?
Also, I've noticed that OSX 10.3 comes with Python 2.3 installed, but
that Windows XP does not. Python installation is much more cumbersome on
Windows. The user has to dl Python and then Mr. Hammond's extensions to
get up to speed with the new Macs out of the box. Does Python play
favorites? I think it would have a much larger user base if Windows user
got what mac users get.
Could someone explain this to me? I don't mean this to start a platform
war as I'm really agnostic on the matter. Just curious.
Thanks!!!
Skip Montanaro
Jeff> Python could probably be included in the next version of Windows
Jeff> if Bill Gates decided he wanted to. But I don't think he's called
Jeff> Guido up yet.
I believe the Python license gives Bill the option of including Python
without Guido's permission. ;-)
Skip
Tim Peters
> While trying to learn more about Python's standard modules, I noticed
> that there are *a lot* of Mac only modules... more so than Unix and
> Windows specific modules combined. Is there a reason for this?
They're for the benefit of the "Mac Classic" OSes, and they exist because
Jack Jansen devoted a large part of his life to supporting those beasts.
> I am familiar with the Windows extensions by Mr. Hammond and wonder if
> they'll ever become apart of the official Python distribution.
Hard to say. Mark likes having a release schedule independent of Python's,
and Guido hates Mark's coding style. Both act against folding the Windows
extensions into the core.
> It looks as if something similar already exists for Macs with all
> these Mac only modules. Why is this?
Jack doesn't like having a release schedule independent of Python's, and
Guido doesn't hate Jack's coding style (Guido and Jack were coworkers at
CWI, by the way).
> Also, I've noticed that OSX 10.3 comes with Python 2.3 installed,
That was Apple's decision, not "ours".
> but that Windows XP does not.
And that's Microsoft's decision, not "ours". We can't tell OS vendors what
to ship, and all OS vendors are equally free to redistribute Python (the
Python license extends that right to everyone who wants it).
> Python installation is much more cumbersome on Windows. The user has
> to dl Python and then Mr. Hammond's extensions to get up to speed
> with the new Macs out of the box.
I think you meant "Windows systems" rather than "Macs" there, but yes,
that's true. Microsoft could bundle both, but they don't, and what MS ships
is solely up to MS (well, up to them and hundreds of courts all over the
globe <wink>).
> Does Python play favorites?
It tries not to. In practice, it favors Unix-ish systems, mostly because a
large majority of Python contributors run on Unix-ish systems, and because
at least the open-source flavors of Unix-like systems are delighted to ship
all the high-quality open-source applications they can.
< I think it would have a much larger user base if Windows user got
> what mac users get.
It would, but why would Microsoft want to increase Python's user base? They
probably see Python as a competitor to their own programming language
offerings, and they make money from the latter.
> Could someone explain this to me?
Not every company is primarily concerned with your best interests <wink>.
Jeff Epler
community was thrilled.
There are also a couple of people who are working very hard on
Mac-specific modules for Python. I don't know why they're included in
the core while pythonwin is not--is it just historical coincidence? A
license difficulty? Change in attitudes? However, I don't view the
pythonwin download as a big hassle.
Python could probably be included in the next version of Windows
if Bill Gates decided he wanted to. But I don't think he's called Guido
up yet.
Jeff
Skip Montanaro
>> Also, I've noticed that OSX 10.3 comes with Python 2.3 installed,
Tim> That was Apple's decision, not "ours".
>> but that Windows XP does not.
Tim> And that's Microsoft's decision, not "ours". We can't tell OS
Tim> vendors what to ship, and all OS vendors are equally free to
Tim> redistribute Python (the Python license extends that right to
Tim> everyone who wants it).
While Microsoft doesn't bundle Python with Windows, there are one or two PC
makers who add Python to their Windows boxes (HP comes to mind - the
practice appears to have originated at Compaq before HP acquired it). I
think that's mostly to support their extra admin tools, not to encourage all
their customers to start writing software.
Skip
Terry Reedy
"hokieghal99" <hokie...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bss8qn$mb7$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
> Also, I've noticed that OSX 10.3 comes with Python 2.3 installed, but
> that Windows XP does not.
My new HP Pavilion XP came with Python 2.2.1 loaded for use by HP's
utilities. However, their docs say nothing about it and it was not
completely installed in that there were no file associations for .py.
That's fine since I will add 2.3.3 soon and leave HP's install alone for
its use.
Terry J. Reedy
Ronald Oussoren
On 30 dec 2003, at 21:41, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>
>> looks as if something similar already exists for Macs with all these
>> Mac only modules. Why is this?
>>
> Not really. I don't think the Mac modules are accessing down
> to the
> core Mac programming interface, they are more utilities.
They are wrappers for a large part of the MacOS API's. And they are
actively maintained.
Ronald
"Martin v. Löwis"
> There are also a couple of people who are working very hard on
> Mac-specific modules for Python. I don't know why they're included in
> the core while pythonwin is not--is it just historical coincidence? A
> license difficulty? Change in attitudes?
AFAIR, the Mac parts were included on request of Jack Jansen, who
was looking for a "permanent home" for his code, with CVS, bug tracking,
integrated releases, and all that. Guido van Rossum agreed, as it would
make Jack's life simpler.
I personally was shocked when I saw just *how* big the code base was,
but then accepted it, as much of it is for OS9 and older, and the OSX
stuff is more and more getting folded into the standard libraries
(where applicable); OS9 support will be dropped for Python 2.4.
Apart from Tim's analysis of coding styles, I think PythonWin would
become integrated if Mark Hammond requested that. Anybody else
requesting it would have no effect; and, as Tim said, Mark is unlikely
to request it because he doesn't want to wait a year for the next
Python release just to release the next version of PythonWin.
Regards,
Martin
James Kew
> Windows. The user has to dl Python and then Mr. Hammond's extensions to
> get up to speed with the new Macs out of the box.
Or install the ActiveState distro, which has pythonwin pre-installed. One
install and off you go.
To be honest, too, I'm not sure how useful the pythonwin extensions are for
new Python users -- if you're not interested in banging around with the
Windows API, then base Python has all you need. Although I do very much like
the pythonwin IDE.
James
logistix at cathoderaymission.net
> [hokieghal99]
>
> < I think it would have a much larger user base if Windows user got
> > what mac users get.
>
> It would, but why would Microsoft want to increase Python's user base? They
> probably see Python as a competitor to their own programming language
> offerings, and they make money from the latter.
>
> > Could someone explain this to me?
>
> Not every company is primarily concerned with your best interests <wink>.
Microsoft has Resource Kit CD's that contain a bunch of "unsupported"
tools, some of which are required to do any serious system
administration. For some strange reason, they include ActiveState
Perl, along with a zip file containing the source code, although it
doesn't install by default. They must not have any worries about that
language competing seriously with their products ;-)
Peter Åstrand
[About including win32 into the Python core distribution]
>Mark is unlikely to request it because he doesn't want to wait a year for
>the next Python release just to release the next version of PythonWin.
I don't understand why this is necessary. win32 is just a bunch of
additional modules. Let's say that these were included in, say, Python
2.4. Wouldn't it be possible for Mark to release an updated package that
just replaces the modules included in 2.4? You could call it a "win32
servicepack X for Python Y.Z".
Tim Peters (tim...@comcast.net):
>Mark likes having a release schedule independent of Python's, and Guido
>hates Mark's coding style. Both act against folding the Windows
>extensions into the core.
So, theoretically, if another person stepped forward that re-indented the
source code and was happy about following the Python release schedule,
then the extensions could be added?
I think it's a shame that such minor issues as coding style and release
schedules should block an important thing like this.
--
/Peter Åstrand <ast...@lysator.liu.se>
Tim Peters
>> Mark likes having a release schedule independent of Python's, and
>> Guido hates Mark's coding style. Both act against folding the
>> Windows extensions into the core.
[Peter Åstrand]
> So, theoretically, if another person stepped forward that re-indented
> the source code and was happy about following the Python release
> schedule, then the extensions could be added?
Not really. It would have to be someone who could make a credible case that
they're going to continue supporting this spinoff of Mark's work, year after
year. Guido has grown (with good reason) wary of accepting code into the
core unless it comes with a credible plan for supporting it after the
initial contributor loses interest (gets a real job <wink>, dies, etc).
> I think it's a shame that such minor issues as coding style and
> release schedules should block an important thing like this.
To the contrary, it's ongoing maintenance that consumes the most time in any
project, and those "minor issues" are major from that perspective.
Python-style docs and test suites would also need to be created.