It looks like the ever-popular Vista may be the impetus which drives game
developers towards open platforms. Jonathan Blow, the author of the
long-delayed, very
original, and kind of quirky indie game "Braid" has decided
that,thanks to Vista being so
annoying, he is going to develop and release Braid on Ubuntu.
Until now, only relatively unknown developers
such as Id Software have bothered to release or develop games on the
Linux platform, but now that the more popular indie developers are starting
to look at it, the commercial mainstream might not be far behind.
Hooray!
I guess if you don't read any other python-related blogs (or news, or
mailing lists, for that matter) you might not already know that the first alpha of Python 3.0
has been released.
A sample of the release notes:
I've already blogged about my inability to get excited about Python 3.0. Now that it's begun to arrive, I can more clearly see the scope of the work required to get in sync with it, and the new features that it is actually going to encompass. It's a staggering amount of work.
Jean-Paul Calderone has prepared a preliminary run of the 2to3 tool over the Twisted codebase. This includes a 820 kilobyte diff, which took 12 minutes to produce (on a fairly fast, modern piece of hardware). However, this is not even a complete run, because the 2to3 tool cannot even parse two of the files in the repository, despite the fact that they are all valid python. Many of the transformations (especially in the area of the unicode/str conversion) are almost certainly going to drastically change the semantics our test suite, if not break it - although enough of Twisted's dependencies are missing on 3.0 that I haven't even had an opportunity to try.
I still hold out hope that the 3.0 branch will gradually be abandoned, as these changes are rolled back into older versions (2.6+) of Python and gradually phased in, with their deprecated alternatives being gradually phased out. Right now, though, the plan is to continue parallel development in the 2.x series until 3.0 is ready to "take over", although I'm not sure how that determination will be made.
While I wish I could be more excited about something in the 3.0 roadmap, it worries me that some of the excitement I see from others is enthusiasm for the idea of using it as an excuse to break their own users' software too. If you've written a library for Python, please consider that its users are going to be having a hard enough time upgrading from python 2.x to 3.x; you should really try to provide the smoothest migration path from here to there, and keep your APIs as compatible as possible.
Although I'd like to say something nice and congratulatory, the thought of spending a year just pushing little piles of syntax into other little piles of syntax, even with the help of a tool like a hypothetically-much-more-advanced 2to3, is honestly just depressing. I'd have to get Twisted (and Axiom and Nevow and Mantissa and Quotient and a handful of proprietary projects that I work on) to work on Python 3.0 before I can use it. If I'm going to work on Twisted, I have a lot of other things I'd rather be doing. So my plan, for the moment, is to ignore Python 3.0 as long as I possibly can.
But hey, that's what the magic of open source is supposed to be about, right? Do you like Python 3.0? Do you want to see Twisted (and the various Divmod projects) eventually support it? A fairly substantial portion of the diff in question is a litany of non-controversial stylistic changes to update old, and sometimes creaky parts of the codebase. For example, there are a bunch of usages of the 'print' statement that need to be transformed; you might consider submitting a patch which simply removes all usages of "print", since we probably shouldn't be using that syntax anyway. That will reduce the size of the changes that we need to consider, generate, and apply in order to be 3.0 compliant. and probably improve the code's cleanliness quite a bit. Once those parts are applied, and thereby removed from the output of 2to3, we can have a better view of what work is actually necessary to support 2.x and 3.0 versions simultaneously from the same codebase.
Of course, comprehensive test coverage is something else frequently brought up when talking about the 2-to-3 migration. Any patches which increase or improve our test coverage will alway be greatly appreciated regardless of any migration issues.
The one prospect that appeals to me is that, if 3.0 successfully adheres to the vague promise of breaking backwards compatibility "just this once", Python may move towards being a real platform instead of simply a tool that you run on another platform. Of course, backwards incompatible changes can be a bit like potato chips - "you can't eat just one" - but I trust that the Python team can stick to it if they see the value in it and have made the incompatible changes they think are significant and necessary.
A few days ago I ran Neverwinter Nights on my Ubuntu (feisty) machine and was pleased to discover that despite the fact that there are new versions of SDL, X11, the Linux kernel, GNOME, ALSA, and a dozen other dependencies (all of which are dynamically bound) since five years ago when it was written, it still runs beautifully, with no configuration or re-installation on my part. Getting that kind of reliability from Python, and being able to provide it for Twisted, would be worth a fair amount of time spent overhauling syntax.
A sample of the release notes:
- There are a few memory leaks
- SSL support is disabled
- Platform support is reduced
- There may be additional issues on 64-bit architectures
- There are still some open issues on Windows
- Some new features are very fresh, and probably contain bugs
- IDLE still has some open issues
I've already blogged about my inability to get excited about Python 3.0. Now that it's begun to arrive, I can more clearly see the scope of the work required to get in sync with it, and the new features that it is actually going to encompass. It's a staggering amount of work.
Jean-Paul Calderone has prepared a preliminary run of the 2to3 tool over the Twisted codebase. This includes a 820 kilobyte diff, which took 12 minutes to produce (on a fairly fast, modern piece of hardware). However, this is not even a complete run, because the 2to3 tool cannot even parse two of the files in the repository, despite the fact that they are all valid python. Many of the transformations (especially in the area of the unicode/str conversion) are almost certainly going to drastically change the semantics our test suite, if not break it - although enough of Twisted's dependencies are missing on 3.0 that I haven't even had an opportunity to try.
I still hold out hope that the 3.0 branch will gradually be abandoned, as these changes are rolled back into older versions (2.6+) of Python and gradually phased in, with their deprecated alternatives being gradually phased out. Right now, though, the plan is to continue parallel development in the 2.x series until 3.0 is ready to "take over", although I'm not sure how that determination will be made.
While I wish I could be more excited about something in the 3.0 roadmap, it worries me that some of the excitement I see from others is enthusiasm for the idea of using it as an excuse to break their own users' software too. If you've written a library for Python, please consider that its users are going to be having a hard enough time upgrading from python 2.x to 3.x; you should really try to provide the smoothest migration path from here to there, and keep your APIs as compatible as possible.
Although I'd like to say something nice and congratulatory, the thought of spending a year just pushing little piles of syntax into other little piles of syntax, even with the help of a tool like a hypothetically-much-more-advanced 2to3, is honestly just depressing. I'd have to get Twisted (and Axiom and Nevow and Mantissa and Quotient and a handful of proprietary projects that I work on) to work on Python 3.0 before I can use it. If I'm going to work on Twisted, I have a lot of other things I'd rather be doing. So my plan, for the moment, is to ignore Python 3.0 as long as I possibly can.
But hey, that's what the magic of open source is supposed to be about, right? Do you like Python 3.0? Do you want to see Twisted (and the various Divmod projects) eventually support it? A fairly substantial portion of the diff in question is a litany of non-controversial stylistic changes to update old, and sometimes creaky parts of the codebase. For example, there are a bunch of usages of the 'print' statement that need to be transformed; you might consider submitting a patch which simply removes all usages of "print", since we probably shouldn't be using that syntax anyway. That will reduce the size of the changes that we need to consider, generate, and apply in order to be 3.0 compliant. and probably improve the code's cleanliness quite a bit. Once those parts are applied, and thereby removed from the output of 2to3, we can have a better view of what work is actually necessary to support 2.x and 3.0 versions simultaneously from the same codebase.
Of course, comprehensive test coverage is something else frequently brought up when talking about the 2-to-3 migration. Any patches which increase or improve our test coverage will alway be greatly appreciated regardless of any migration issues.
The one prospect that appeals to me is that, if 3.0 successfully adheres to the vague promise of breaking backwards compatibility "just this once", Python may move towards being a real platform instead of simply a tool that you run on another platform. Of course, backwards incompatible changes can be a bit like potato chips - "you can't eat just one" - but I trust that the Python team can stick to it if they see the value in it and have made the incompatible changes they think are significant and necessary.
A few days ago I ran Neverwinter Nights on my Ubuntu (feisty) machine and was pleased to discover that despite the fact that there are new versions of SDL, X11, the Linux kernel, GNOME, ALSA, and a dozen other dependencies (all of which are dynamically bound) since five years ago when it was written, it still runs beautifully, with no configuration or re-installation on my part. Getting that kind of reliability from Python, and being able to provide it for Twisted, would be worth a fair amount of time spent overhauling syntax.
Most Python programmers are at least vaguely aware of sys.path, PYTHONPATH,
and the effect they have on importing modules. However, there's a lot
of confusion about how to use them properly, and how powerful these concepts
can be if you know how to apply them. Twisted - and in particular the
plugin system - make very nuanced use of the python path, which can
sometimes make things that use them a bit hard to explain, since there isn't
a well-defined common terminology or good library support for working with
paths, except to the extent that they are used by importers.
This article is really about two things: the general concept of paths, and the Twisted module "twisted.python.modules", which provides some specific implementations of my ideas about the python path.
First of all, why should you care about python paths? To put it simply, because very bizarre problems can result if you use them incorrectly. Also, you need to know about them in order to use Twisted's plugin system effectively, and of course you want to use Twisted, right? :)
What kind of problems? Even very popular, well-regarded Python packages by very experienced Python programmers sometimes mess this up pretty badly. Here's a simple example of what can go wrong with a package you probably know of, the Python Imaging Library:
PIL is a package; that is, a directory with Python source code and an "__init__.py" in it, named "PIL". However, it also installs a ".pth" file as part of its installation. ".pth" files are one way to add entries to your sys.path. This particular one adds the "PIL" directory to your path, which means it can be loaded from two entries: as a package, from your "site-packages" directory.
This isn't to pick on PIL or the Effbot; I've seen lots of projects which have a "lib" directory with an __init__.py and change its name at installation time, or inconsistently reference subpackages with relative and absolute imports, or do any number of things which are just as bad. I hope that I've convinced you not to do the same thing with your project, but I won't dwell on the problem here, since I have a solution handy.
Unless you already know what is going on (although I'm sure many of you reading this already do), this can be a bit confusing to figure out. You can use twisted.python.modules to ask this question rather directly. Here's how:
Of course, if we wanted to load those modules, it's easy enough:
where the "Image" module was loaded:
For example, let's take a look at the list of Mantissa plugin modules I have installed:
That's my full list of Mantissa plugins, including my super secret Divmod proprietary plugins.
This list is generated because plugins packages use a feature (which was previously kind of a gross hack but will be an officially supported feature of the next version of Twisted) to set their path to every directory with the same name as the plugin package which is not also a package on your python path. In other words, if you have 2 sys.path entries, a/ and b/, and one package, x.plugins, in b/x/plugins/__init__.py with this trick in it, then if you have a file b/x/plugins/foo.py, it will be considered to contain the module "x.plugins.foo". This requires that you do not have a file b/x/__init__.py or b/x/plugins/__init__.py. If you do, this hack will treat the two paths the same way that Python does: duplicate packages in your path, so the package in a/ is loaded and the package in b/ is ignored.
The distinction between packages and path entries is why all the Twisted and Divmod projects conventionally have capitalized directory names but lowercase package names. "Twisted" is where your path entry should point; "twisted" is the python package that is loaded from that path entry. "Twisted" should never have an __init__.py in it. "twisted" always should. This goes the same for "Axiom" and "axiom", "Mantissa" and (the unfortunately named) "xmantissa". You will sometimes encounter other examples of this style of naming floating around the web.
When using Twisted and Divmod infrastructure, keeping this distinction is clear is critical, because otherwise it is difficult to develop plugins independently. You probably don't want to copy your development plugins into your Twisted installation - they're part of your source repository, after all, not ours. However, keeping the distinction clear in your mind will avoid lots of obscure problems with duplicate classes and naming, so it's generally a good idea even if you don't like our naming conventions.
Please let me know in the comments which parts of this post you found useful, if any. I know it's a bit rambling, and covers a number of different topics, some of which may be obvious and some of which might be inscrutable. I've experienced quite a bit of confusion when talking to other python programmers about this stuff, but I'm not sure if it was my awkward explanation of Twisted's plugin system or some inherent issue in Python's path management.
This article is really about two things: the general concept of paths, and the Twisted module "twisted.python.modules", which provides some specific implementations of my ideas about the python path.
First of all, why should you care about python paths? To put it simply, because very bizarre problems can result if you use them incorrectly. Also, you need to know about them in order to use Twisted's plugin system effectively, and of course you want to use Twisted, right? :)
What kind of problems? Even very popular, well-regarded Python packages by very experienced Python programmers sometimes mess this up pretty badly. Here's a simple example of what can go wrong with a package you probably know of, the Python Imaging Library:
>>> import ImageHere we can see that you can import PIL's "Image" module as either "PIL.Image" or simply "Image". Both these modules are loaded from the same file. On the face of it, this is simply a convenience. But let's dig deeper:
>>> import PIL.Image
>>> img = PIL.Image.Image()
>>> Image.__file__
'/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/PIL/Image.pyc'
>>> PIL.Image.__file__
'/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/PIL/Image.pyc'
>>> PIL.Image == ImageThe modules aren't the same object! This has some nasty practical repercussions:
False
>>> isinstance(img, Image.Image)For example, Image objects created from one of these PIL modules do not register as instances from the other, even though they're all the same code. Worse yet, this mistake can become "sticky" if you use them along with a module like pickle, which carries the module and class name into the data:
False
>>> from cPickle import dumpsMany Python features and packages depend on matching types. Zope Interface, for example, will not let you use adapters for one Image type for the other, the objects will not compare equivalent even if they really are, and so on. And none of this is a bug in the code! Why does it happen?
>>> img2 = Image.Image()
>>> dumps(img)
"(iPIL.Image\nImage\n ...
>>> dumps(img2)
"(iImage\nImage\n ...
PIL is a package; that is, a directory with Python source code and an "__init__.py" in it, named "PIL". However, it also installs a ".pth" file as part of its installation. ".pth" files are one way to add entries to your sys.path. This particular one adds the "PIL" directory to your path, which means it can be loaded from two entries: as a package, from your "site-packages" directory.
This isn't to pick on PIL or the Effbot; I've seen lots of projects which have a "lib" directory with an __init__.py and change its name at installation time, or inconsistently reference subpackages with relative and absolute imports, or do any number of things which are just as bad. I hope that I've convinced you not to do the same thing with your project, but I won't dwell on the problem here, since I have a solution handy.
Unless you already know what is going on (although I'm sure many of you reading this already do), this can be a bit confusing to figure out. You can use twisted.python.modules to ask this question rather directly. Here's how:
>>> from twisted.python.modules import getModuleHere we're asking twisted.python.modules to give us objects that represent metadata about two modules, without actually loading them. The attribute here is the 'pathEntry' attribute, which tells us what entry on sys.path the module would be loaded from, if it's imported.
>>> imageModule = getModule("Image")
>>> pilImageModule = getModule("PIL.Image")
>>> imageModule.pathEntry
PathEntry<FilePath('/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/PIL')>
>>> pilImageModule.pathEntry
PathEntry<FilePath('/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages')>
>>> import sysLook, no modules!
>>> pilImageModule.isLoaded()
False
>>> imageModule.isLoaded()
False
>>> 'PIL.Image' in sys.modules
False
>>> 'Image' in sys.modules
False
Of course, if we wanted to load those modules, it's easy enough:
>>> pilImageModule.load()You can also get lists of modules. For example, you can see that the list of modules in the "PIL" package is suspiciously similar to the list of top-level modules that comes from the path entry
<module 'PIL.Image' from '/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/PIL/Image.pyc'>
>>> imageModule.load()
<module 'Image' from '/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/PIL/Image.pyc'>
where the "Image" module was loaded:
>>> pilModule = getModule("PIL")As you might imagine, the ability to list modules and load the ones that seem interesting is a great way to load plugins - and that's exactly how Twisted's plugin system is implemented. While the plugin system itself is a topic for another post (or perhaps you could just read the documentation) the way it finds plugins is interesting.
>>> pprint(list(pilModule.iterModules())[:5])
[PythonModule<'PIL.ArgImagePlugin'>,
PythonModule<'PIL.BdfFontFile'>,
PythonModule<'PIL.BmpImagePlugin'>,
PythonModule<'PIL.BufrStubImagePlugin'>,
PythonModule<'PIL.ContainerIO'>]
>>> pprint(list(imageModule.pathEntry.iterModules())[:5])
[PythonModule<'ArgImagePlugin'>,
PythonModule<'BdfFontFile'>,
PythonModule<'BmpImagePlugin'>,
PythonModule<'BufrStubImagePlugin'>,
PythonModule<'ContainerIO'>]
For example, let's take a look at the list of Mantissa plugin modules I have installed:
>>> xmplugins = getModule('xmantissa.plugins')This simple query is actually an incomplete list. It's just the modules that come with Mantissa itself. Python has a special little-known rule when loading modules from packages, and twisted.python.plugins honors it: if there is a special variable called "__path__" in a package, it is a list of path names to load modules from. However, twisted.python.plugins doesn't load modules unless you ask it to, so it can't determine the value of that attribute. As it so happens, twisted.plugins uses the __path__ attribute in order to allow you to keep your development installations separate, so twisted.python.plugins can't determine all the places you might need to look for plugins without some help. Let's just load that package so we can look at its __path__ attribute:
>>> pprint(list(xmplugins.iterModules()))
[PythonModule<'xmantissa.plugins.adminoff'>,
PythonModule<'xmantissa.plugins.baseoff'>,
PythonModule<'xmantissa.plugins.free_signup'>,
PythonModule<'xmantissa.plugins.offerings'>]
>>> xmplugins.load()Now that we've loaded it, let's have a look at that list:
<module 'xmantissa.plugins' from '/home/glyph/Projects/Divmod/trunk/Mantissa/xmantissa/plugins/__init__.pyc'>
>>> pprint(list(xmplugins.iterModules()))
[PythonModule<'xmantissa.plugins.adminoff'>,
PythonModule<'xmantissa.plugins.baseoff'>,
PythonModule<'xmantissa.plugins.free_signup'>,
PythonModule<'xmantissa.plugins.offerings'>,
PythonModule<'xmantissa.plugins.mailoff'>,
PythonModule<'xmantissa.plugins.radoff'>,
PythonModule<'xmantissa.plugins.sineoff'>,
PythonModule<'xmantissa.plugins.hyperbolaoff'>,
PythonModule<'xmantissa.plugins.imaginaryoff'>,
PythonModule<'xmantissa.plugins.blendix_offering'>,
PythonModule<'xmantissa.plugins.billed_signup'>,
PythonModule<'xmantissa.plugins.billoff'>,
PythonModule<'xmantissa.plugins.derivoff'>]
That's my full list of Mantissa plugins, including my super secret Divmod proprietary plugins.
This list is generated because plugins packages use a feature (which was previously kind of a gross hack but will be an officially supported feature of the next version of Twisted) to set their path to every directory with the same name as the plugin package which is not also a package on your python path. In other words, if you have 2 sys.path entries, a/ and b/, and one package, x.plugins, in b/x/plugins/__init__.py with this trick in it, then if you have a file b/x/plugins/foo.py, it will be considered to contain the module "x.plugins.foo". This requires that you do not have a file b/x/__init__.py or b/x/plugins/__init__.py. If you do, this hack will treat the two paths the same way that Python does: duplicate packages in your path, so the package in a/ is loaded and the package in b/ is ignored.
The distinction between packages and path entries is why all the Twisted and Divmod projects conventionally have capitalized directory names but lowercase package names. "Twisted" is where your path entry should point; "twisted" is the python package that is loaded from that path entry. "Twisted" should never have an __init__.py in it. "twisted" always should. This goes the same for "Axiom" and "axiom", "Mantissa" and (the unfortunately named) "xmantissa". You will sometimes encounter other examples of this style of naming floating around the web.
When using Twisted and Divmod infrastructure, keeping this distinction is clear is critical, because otherwise it is difficult to develop plugins independently. You probably don't want to copy your development plugins into your Twisted installation - they're part of your source repository, after all, not ours. However, keeping the distinction clear in your mind will avoid lots of obscure problems with duplicate classes and naming, so it's generally a good idea even if you don't like our naming conventions.
Please let me know in the comments which parts of this post you found useful, if any. I know it's a bit rambling, and covers a number of different topics, some of which may be obvious and some of which might be inscrutable. I've experienced quite a bit of confusion when talking to other python programmers about this stuff, but I'm not sure if it was my awkward explanation of Twisted's plugin system or some inherent issue in Python's path management.
As I've said before, Microsoft Windows Vista is a
terrible disaster which I hope I never have to deal with in any
capacity, professional or otherwise. I suspect that it is inevitable,
but I will resist it for as long as possible.
The FSF has a campaign, "BADVISTA", to educate end-users about the ways in which Vista is limiting your freedom more aggressively than any other commercial software product to date. Unfortunately this can sometimes sound a bit ... overdramatic, even if it is pretty much all true. For example, a prominently featured quotation:
Of course, I gave him my rant about the other reasons he shouldn't have upgraded, and the poor guy turned white as a sheet. I don't think he's going to be purchasing any more "upgrades" from his "computer guy".
But, what does the other side have to say about this fancy new operating system? Surely there are some worthwhile new conveniences that we are trading this freedom for? Let's see what one ex-Microsoft employee and prominent Windows developer has to say about it:
The FSF has a campaign, "BADVISTA", to educate end-users about the ways in which Vista is limiting your freedom more aggressively than any other commercial software product to date. Unfortunately this can sometimes sound a bit ... overdramatic, even if it is pretty much all true. For example, a prominently featured quotation:
Windows Vista includes an array of “features” that you don't want. These features will make your computer less reliable and less secure. They'll make your computer less stable and run slower. They will cause technical support problems. They may even require you to upgrade some of your peripheral hardware and existing software. And these features won't do anything useful. In fact, they're working against you.I recently had the experience of talking to a Regular User in a consumer electronics store about his vista "upgrade". His "computer guy" had told him that Vista was like XP, but better. Little did he know that the "better" would mean that the computer ran visibly slower, had reduced functionality, and required the purchase of newer, more expensive hardware.
Of course, I gave him my rant about the other reasons he shouldn't have upgraded, and the poor guy turned white as a sheet. I don't think he's going to be purchasing any more "upgrades" from his "computer guy".
But, what does the other side have to say about this fancy new operating system? Surely there are some worthwhile new conveniences that we are trading this freedom for? Let's see what one ex-Microsoft employee and prominent Windows developer has to say about it:
"I've been using Vista on my home laptop since it shipped, and can say with some conviction that nobody should be using it as their primary operating system -- it simply has no redeeming merits to overcome the compatibility headaches it causes. Whenever anyone asks, my advice is to stay with Windows XP (and to purchase new systems with XP preinstalled)."... and there you have it. Friends don't let friends use Vista.
The word "depreciate" means "to lessen the price or value of". This is
an accounting jargon term referring to the process by which assets
lose value over time. It is pronounced 'Dee Pree Shee Ate".
The word "deprecate" means "to express disapproval of" or "to urge reasons against; protest against". This is a programming jargon term describing the process by which APIs become less favorable over time. It is pronounced "Deh Preh Kayt".
These words, while they have similar meanings, are not synonyms. Please do not confuse them, especially when using their jargon senses. It sounds like nails on a chalkboard to me, having worked on accounting software. I would like to be able to use phrases like "a deprecated depreciation function" without eliciting bewilderment.
Both Java and Python consistently use "@deprecated", and "DeprecationWarning". English usage of these terms may be shifting, but "DepreciationWarning" or "@depreciated" will still get you runtime or compiler errors, so please stick to "deprecate" consistently while talking about code.
Thank you.
The word "deprecate" means "to express disapproval of" or "to urge reasons against; protest against". This is a programming jargon term describing the process by which APIs become less favorable over time. It is pronounced "Deh Preh Kayt".
These words, while they have similar meanings, are not synonyms. Please do not confuse them, especially when using their jargon senses. It sounds like nails on a chalkboard to me, having worked on accounting software. I would like to be able to use phrases like "a deprecated depreciation function" without eliciting bewilderment.
Both Java and Python consistently use "@deprecated", and "DeprecationWarning". English usage of these terms may be shifting, but "DepreciationWarning" or "@depreciated" will still get you runtime or compiler errors, so please stick to "deprecate" consistently while talking about code.
Thank you.