This is also my approach, and the one that I'm encouraging throughout Microsoft as we start putting out more Python packages for stuff.
Top-posted from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Barry Warsaw<mailto:ba...@python.org> Sent: 12/13/2014 7:19 To: python-dev@python.org<mailto:python-dev@python.org> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition 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. Cheers, -Barry _______________________________________________ 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/steve.dower%40microsoft.com
_______________________________________________ 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
