> 2012/8/22 VernonCole <vernondc...@gmail.com>: > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 4:03:57 PM UTC-6, DrMeers wrote: >> >> It's a shame we couldn't skip straight to Python 3.3 and take >> advantage of PEP414... > > That seems to me (in my dark status as a lurker here) to be a brilliant > idea.
Well, this point is moot as far as Django is concerned: we already went through the effort of removing the `u` prefixes! However I'd like to explain why this PEP is at odds with the porting philosophy I've applied to Django, and why I would have vetoed taking advantage of it. I believe that aiming for a Python 2 codebase with Python 3 compatibility hacks is a counter-productive way to port a project. You end up with all the drawbacks of Python 2 (including the legacy `u` prefixes) and none of the advantages Python 3 (especially the sane string handling). Working to write Python 3 code, with legacy compatibility for Python 2, is much more rewarding. Of course it takes more effort, but the results are much cleaner and much more maintainable. It's really about looking towards the future or towards the past. I understand the reasons why PEP 414 was proposed and why it was accepted. It makes sense for legacy software that is minimally maintained. I hope nobody puts Django in this category! -- Aymeric. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
