> On Dec 13, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: > > On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > >> For what it’s worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and >> that’s with the “easy” subset of 2.6+ and either 3.2+ or 3.3+) and doing so >> does make the language far less fun for me than when I was writing 2.x only >> code. > > For myself, the way I'd put it is: > > With the libraries I maintain, I generally write Python 2/3 compatible code, > targeting Python 2.7 and 3.4, with 2.6, 3.3, and 3.2 support as bonuses, > although I will not contort too much to support those older versions. Doing > so does make the language far less fun for me than when I am writing 3.x only > code. All applications I write in pure Python 3, targeting Python 3.4, unless > my dependencies are not all available in Python 3, or I haven't yet had the > cycles/resources to port to Python 3. Writing and maintaining applications in > Python 2 is far less fun than doing so in Python 3. >
Yea that’s not unlike me in that. I don’t write many applications where I have a choice of runtime. Most of what I write tends to be libraries or applications for work where we’re using 2.7 or pip itself where if we dropped 2.7 or 2.6 support people would be after us with pitchforks. --- Donald Stufft PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
