Graham and Mike, thanks for the replies.
I suppose it's the age old problem of wanting to use the latest version, but your options are limited if not enough of the programming community wants to move forward with you. If 3.x had been totally backward-compatible, the take-up would have been faster, but it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" with so many 2.x apps out there, so the incentive is not there to upgrade. Regards, Alan On 26 Oct, 08:17, Graham Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 25 Oct 2009, at 23:30, aharrisreid wrote: > > > > > I am very much new to Python, and one of my first projects is a simple > > data-based website. However, looking to the future, I am > > starting with Python 3.1 (I can hear many of you shouting "don't - > > start with 2.6"), so I need to know - is Pylons compatible with 3.1 > > yet. If not, are plans in the pipeline? > > Apart from the WSGI hiatus described by Mike, the Pylons code itself > is compatible with Python 3.1, however none of the libraries on which > Pylons depends have been yet been ported to run under 3.1. It's not so > much a case of an active "plans in the pipeline" but rather a passive > wait for the 3rd party library authors to implement the ports: > > Ports required for Pylons 0.9.7 dependencies: > > simplejson > decorator > nose > > Routes > WebHelpers > Beaker > Mako > WebError > > WebOb > WebTest > Paste > PasteDeploy > PasteScript > FormEncode > Tempita > > Coincidentally, I've been pushing 3.1 around this weekend. I > bootstrapped myself up with a 3.1 environment (virtualenv3, setuptools > for 3.1, easy_install-3.1, nosetests3) and ran the standard 2to3-3.1 > preprocessor on the dependency libs. Heroically ignoring varying > degrees of brittleness and failing, erroring tests I was able to > compile and install them all and did eventually manage to get Paster/ > Pylons to run and serve the welcome screen. > > According to Mike Bayer, SQLAlchemy 0.6 is 3.1 compatible, it uses a > customized 2to3 preprocessor but it isn't quite an out-of-the-box > easy_install and the sqlite tests are failing (on my set-up at least). > > I'm not sure why the general migration to 3.1 is going so slowly given > that many people seem very keen to get max speed. > > 3.1 is quicker than 2.6.1 for me. I'm seeing 1.50 usec/pass from > Python 3.1 and 2.21 usec/pass from Python 2.6.1 when this trivial > example is executed from within a TextMate buffer on my intel PowerBook: > > import timeit > s = """\ > try: > str.__bool__ > except AttributeError: > pass > """ > t = timeit.Timer(stmt=s) > print("%.2f usec/pass" % > (1000000 * t.timeit(number=100000)/100000)) > > 1.50 usec/pass vs 2.21 usec/pass is worth having IMO. > > Cheers, > > Graham > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghiggins --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
