On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 10:17:59 -0500, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: > On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > >For what itâs worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and > >thatâs with the âeasyâ 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.
I think this is an important distinction. The considerations are very different for library maintainers than they are for application maintainers. Most of my work is in (customer) applications, and except for one customer who insists on using an old version of RedHat, I've been on "latest" python3 for those for quite a while now. I suspect we hear less here from people in that situation than would be proportional to their absolute numbers. --David
_______________________________________________ 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
