By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
432,508 Members | 1,856 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 432,508 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Upgrading Python Article

P: n/a
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/a...ng_python.html

I've been looking at whether to upgrade immediately from Python 2.3 to
Python 2.4 or postpone it. This is my first `major version change`, so
I've come up against the usual windoze (tm) problem - upgrading python
breaks all my extension modules.

I've been looking into the issues, what modules do I use, can I
compile them myself ? etc... and the result is a brief article on the
issues round upgrading.

I thought I would share (awww.... aint that nice).

Flames welcomed.

Regards,
Fuzzy

http://www.voidspace.org.uk/atlantib...thonutils.html
Jul 18 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
6 Replies


P: n/a
I had to back out of 2.4. In time I'll upgrade.

It's not really fair to blame windoze for the incompatibility. It is
possible to make software backward compatible with shared libraries. But
you need a plan. The windoze plan is based on COM in its various guises.
Of course, it's not standard outside of the windoze world.

D.

"Michael Foord" <fu******@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f**************************@posting.google.c om...
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/a...ng_python.html

I've been looking at whether to upgrade immediately from Python 2.3 to
Python 2.4 or postpone it. This is my first `major version change`, so
I've come up against the usual windoze (tm) problem - upgrading python
breaks all my extension modules.

I've been looking into the issues, what modules do I use, can I
compile them myself ? etc... and the result is a brief article on the
issues round upgrading.

I thought I would share (awww.... aint that nice).

Flames welcomed.

Regards,
Fuzzy

http://www.voidspace.org.uk/atlantib...thonutils.html

Jul 18 '05 #2

P: n/a
Sure - I don't really *blame* windoze for the problem. It's just more
of a pain upgrading python version on windows. As I said it's given me
an opportunity to work out which extension modules I'm really using !

In actual fact I admire windows, there's an awful lot that goes on
beneath the hood. Microsofts dubious business practises mean that they
get a lot of stick - but windows is very sophisticated.

It is produced with a different ethos though, not *just* the fact that
it is closed source. It is designed for users, whereas Lunix is
designed for programmers. This means that setting up a compiler isn't a
straightforward process (See the references in the article).

Microsoft do now give away their .NET optimising compiler - but
distutils can't be configured to use it without hacking into it. This
means it's more tricky than configuring distutils to use gcc from
mingw. I'm still not sure whether that will work for python 2.4 - I had
got the impression it wouldn't. On the other hand the microsoft
compiler is *better* than gcc anyway :-)

Regards,
Fuzzyman
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/atlantib...thonutils.html

Jul 18 '05 #3

P: n/a
Fuzzyman schreef:
On the other hand the microsoft
compiler is *better* than gcc anyway :-)


It's better at optimising, but it doesn't support standard C & C++. ;-)

--
JanC

"Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving."
RFC 1958 - Architectural Principles of the Internet - section 3.9
Jul 18 '05 #4

P: n/a
JanC <us*********@janc.invalid> wrote:
Fuzzyman schreef:
On the other hand the microsoft
compiler is *better* than gcc anyway :-)


It's better at optimising, but it doesn't support standard C & C++. ;-)


I don't think that's fair. Visual C++ 7.1 is signficantly better at
compliance than their past compilers.
--
- Tim Roberts, ti**@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Jul 18 '05 #5

P: n/a
Tim Roberts schreef:
I don't think that's fair. Visual C++ 7.1 is signficantly better at
compliance than their past compilers.


AFAIK that's only for C++, not for C...?

--
JanC

"Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving."
RFC 1958 - Architectural Principles of the Internet - section 3.9
Jul 18 '05 #6

P: n/a
JanC <us*********@janc.invalid> wrote:
Tim Roberts schreef:
I don't think that's fair. Visual C++ 7.1 is signficantly better at
compliance than their past compilers.


AFAIK that's only for C++, not for C...?


Yes. Microsoft has largely chosen to ignore C99. According to the Visual
Studio team, there has simply been no demand.
--
- Tim Roberts, ti**@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Jul 18 '05 #7

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.