I feel like there’s a missing discussion as to why they aren’t going with Ipython
replies(7):
FTA - Option 3: Using other existing REPL implementations: The authors looked at several alternatives like IPython, bpython, ptpython, and xonsh. While all the above are impressive projects, in the end PyREPL was chosen for its combination of maturity, feature set, and lack of additional dependencies. Another key factor was the alignment with PyPy’s implementation.
Python is 150mo. Hard to justify that 10% of the lines of code, source of bugs and maintenance only go to the shell.
Python already has a million libraries built in, adding more in would be a pain. Plus there is the politics of making something "core" when the maintainers aren't part of the core python team.
Given how tight python keeps it's standard library, it seems pretty much imposssible to imagine those kind of advance features being developed while providing the stability that python normally asks from it's standard library.
$ pip show ipython
[...]
Requires: appnope, backcall, decorator, jedi, matplotlib-inline, pexpect, pickleshare, prompt-toolkit, pygments, stack-data, traitletsWell, perhaps the usual suspects can get another infoworld self-promotion article out of it.
In these decisions the only thing that matters is if Microsoft, Facebook, Bloomberg or one of their employees is pleased.
This really seems like a missed opportunity, instead of another repl that will only be used by developers (they even stated that as primary motivation) who can't install anything else, they could have taken a repl that would actually be widely used to integrate into other programs... Instead I suspect pyrepl will eventually experience the same fate as the current repl, i.e. it will languish with no development and get replaced again eventually because it has become to painful to adjust to changes in the rest of the language and changes in terminals.
import time
value = "foo"
def go():
for i in range(10):
print("...", i, value)
time.sleep(3)
import example
import threading
thread = threading.Thread(target=example.go)
thread.start()
[1] As Smalltalk is most often used with GUIs, you don't get a "REPL" by default - instead, anywhere you can enter text, you can right-click and execute that text as code. You can code a real REPL yourself if you want - 10 lines in the "on new line character" method in a generic text field and you're done.
I mean, I understand the post fine, but I have never seen the units (Mo, mo) before and am wondering where they came from.
I would guess mo is megabytes(megaoctets?) and Mo is gigabytes(is ipython really 15GB? yikes)
No `vi` mode and not planned. Very modern.
However, now I do feel the need to say this - you really do not need a whole lot to enhance your productivity on the python REPL by a large factor, if you take advantage of some simple built-in facilities:
A. Understand the use of the PYTHONSTARTUP environment variable. This alone is a big advantage. It'll allow you to you automatically import often needed modules and declare helpers that you always seem to need.
B. Once you've gotten used to that, Wrap the built-in module code (or I presume pyrepl) to add the little things that you need and point PYTHONSTARTUP to it
C. Enjoy
At the risk of being downvoted again (not that it matters, so won't delete this time), here again, shameless plug - https://github.com/lonetwin/pythonrc
This pain generates job security for the bigcorp employees and grief for anyone else.
If I'm on the right path with these forum threads, it looks like there were issues with how Debian packages python?
https://forum.freecad.org/viewtopic.php?t=67985
https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/6753
https://ffy00.github.io/blog/02-python-debian-and-the-instal...
> ... [Here] are the numpy.distutils features that are not present in setuptools:
* Nested setup.py files
* Fortran build support
* BLAS/LAPACK library support (OpenBLAS, MKL, ATLAS, Netlib LAPACK/BLAS, BLIS, 64-bit ILP interface, etc.)
* Support for a few other scientific libraries, like FFTW and UMFPACK
* Better MinGW support
* Per-compiler build flag customization (e.g. -O3 and SSE2 flags are default)
* a simple user build config system, see site.cfg.example
* SIMD intrinsics support
* Support for the NumPy-specific .src templating format for .c/.h files
try:
# problem
except:
import code
code.interact(local=locals())
This drops you into the interactive shell and you can go wild. Even works inside interactive code like grabbing a live HTTP request or GUI event to see what’s going on.
You'll be happy to know that Python .pyc files, which are created and cached by default, are the equivalent of Java's .class files or C#'s bytecode (which gets embedded inside an .exe wrapper but is still fundamentally not native code).
>The user will be able to... change function definitions, etc.
Of course, this requires recompilation in some form (in Lisp, too - `eval` is not that magic).
That said, if `import`ing your code at the REPL and then calling functions, setting attributes etc. (which has been possible in Python forever) isn't good enough, I really don't understand your use case.
The basic REPL causes serious problems for beginners, and the differences in this REPL are (intentionally or not) largely geared towards fixing those problems. Most notably, beginners can't reliably paste in code examples from tutorials. Either there's a use of `input` which eats the next line of code as interactive input, or a blank line inside a block which the REPL interprets as end-of-code (causing the rest of the block to report `IndentationError`s despite being correctly indented for the intent of the code). They also commonly get tripped up by `help` and `exit` being Python callables rather than REPL commands, and get put off by the lack of built-in screen clearing. (Historically - as it turns out from forum discussion - the Python devs have expected that people actually quit the interpreter with ctrl-D/ctrl-Z, and clear the screen with the terminal emulator's functionality for doing so.)
Yes; it's extremely cruft-filled and nobody wanted to / had the skills to keep the standard library version maintained. There's a note in the Setuptools documentation somewhere about how distutils was deemed fundamentally unfixable, and it doesn't come across like the hacks Setuptools was applying on top of distutils were particularly well understood by anyone.
>In these decisions the only thing that matters is if Microsoft, Facebook, Bloomberg or one of their employees is pleased.
I don't think there's good evidence for this, and the current case is certainly not convincing. Why would they want distutils removed - as opposed to that motivation come from the devs who would otherwise be responsible for its bugs?
I am also very found of pointing out that Powershell still has one of the best ISE's/IDE's in the game for this kind of stuff. One window for editing, a terminal in which whatever you edit runs, and then access to every var/function/etc you just touched in that same terminal is a joyous experience that is shockingly hard to recreate for many languages. Hell half the time I'm just testing out random syntax or a portion of a function and being able to do that in the same session as the script I'm working is awesome.
With enough abuse VS code comes close (for Ruby at least, thank you Pry!) but it would be nice to get a similar experience with Python; I've used a few of the existing REPL options for python, but most of them require you to actually figure out pdb and even then it wasn't as tightly integrated as what I actually wanted.
Didn’t notice your username until you wrote “French”
But I’ve never figured it out and instead have a `requirements-dev.txt` with Jupyter and Ipython in every project because they are so good to have on hand when developing
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1395913/how-to-drop-into...
You could do it even without cooperation from the python app using approach similar to pyrasite (though it is much easier with cooperation--just add a couple of lines).
... Wow, significant portions of that come across to me as AI-generated. I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've gotten that impression from a PEP.
Some examples:
0.01s cpython - with site disabled
0.04s pypy - with site disabled
0.04s cpython - import site and/or built-in modules
0.08s pypy - import site and/or built-in modules
0.13s cpython - import requests
0.31s pypy - import requests
0.31s cpython - import IPython
0.72s pypy - import IPython
1.1s cpython - run ipython nop
2.1s pypy - run ipython nop
Since Python's startup is reasonably fast, it's possible to use it for interactive tools even with heavy imports by spawning a daemon the first time, and just forwarding the requests over a socket. This is mildly annoying but not particularly difficult.
Knowing how to use vi can be useful, but I absolutely cannot fathom how someone can prefer it over an actual IDE as their daily driver for writing code. What's especially disappointing is how often they say things like "I like vi because I can do X" and every time, without fail, X is something any reasonable IDE has been able to do for 10+ years.
No idea why they're so fascinated by using letter keys to move around rather than arrows, as if it takes significant effort to slide you hand 6 inches. You do it often enough and you can go back and forth without even looking.