for the record, i -only- use py3. python 3.2 came out almost half a
year ago and i deployed it on my pack of servers a couple months ago.
everything i do is in 3.2 now. previously i used 3.1. i've ported a
few projects to py3 for my own uses - tried to provide patches but
many packages are
+1
On Jul 13, 11:26 am, Bruno Rocha rochacbr...@gmail.com wrote:
May be, the new project could be a kind of merge with Bottle
(http://bottlepy.org/docs/dev/, Web2py libs fits perfectly with Bottle, and
bottle has a very nice base system. Maybe we cam have a bottle2py-project
with Python3 as
I'm all for having not spending effort to move to Python 3 due to
resource constraints etc.
However, I am curious as to whether having a minimum viable python 3
port will help bring more eyeballs/users to web2py, since hardly any
python web frameworks have moved to Python 3.
The main development
Let us know about any problems you find when you try web2py on Py3.x, ok?
The problem is, it would break backward compatibility.
On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 12:54:57 AM UTC-4, Rahul wrote:
Its true that there are existing python versions 2.6, 2.7.x but what I
would like is Web2py support for Python 3.
Reasons:
1. We should provide early support for Python 3
Very true, we would need to create another branch of web2py, do the initial
conversion to Python 3, then try to maintain it, coding updates and new
features twice: once for Python 2.x and once again for Python 3.x, since the
two have different coding requirements. Then both would need to be
Small correction here:
New features, ideas, and ways of doing things could be created without
*worrying
about* breaking backwards-compatibility because your Python2.x web2py apps
wouldn't work on Python 3 anyways
I think Massimo may have indicated that one idea for Python 3 is to start
from scratch and he had some ideas (hence, Web3py).
The only big reason I could see doing anything on Python 3 right now is that
it'd be the only framework on 3 since I don't think anyone is really
contemplating using 3
Agreed, I think web2py on Py3 is pointless.
An entirely different project, called, let's say, web3py, which runs on Py3
is a different animal altogether...
On 13 July 2011 15:50, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is, it would break backward compatibility.
On Wednesday, July 13,
On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:28:03 AM UTC-4, pbreit wrote:
The only big reason I could see doing anything on Python 3 right now is
that it'd be the only framework on 3...
Except for CherryPy: http://www.cherrypy.org/wiki/WhatsNewIn32
+1
On Jul 13, 9:28 am, Caleb Hattingh caleb.hatti...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed, I think web2py on Py3 is pointless.
An entirely different project, called, let's say, web3py, which runs on Py3
is a different animal altogether...
On 13 July 2011 15:50, Anthony abasta...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it worth calling the prototype version *before* web3py: web3000py? Or would
that be unbearably geeky?
Sent from my iPad
On 13 Jul 2011, at 5:21 PM, Massimo Di Pierro massimo.dipie...@gmail.com
wrote:
+1
On Jul 13, 9:28 am, Caleb Hattingh caleb.hatti...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed, I think
May be, the new project could be a kind of merge with Bottle (
http://bottlepy.org/docs/dev/, Web2py libs fits perfectly with Bottle, and
bottle has a very nice base system. Maybe we cam have a bottle2py-project
with Python3 as goal.
I am fine with Web3py. Atleast we start a step that way towards
Python 3.x ..
On Jul 13, 7:28 pm, Caleb Hattingh caleb.hatti...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed, I think web2py on Py3 is pointless.
An entirely different project, called, let's say, web3py, which runs on Py3
is a different animal
Its true that there are existing python versions 2.6, 2.7.x but what I
would like is Web2py support for Python 3.
Reasons:
1. We should provide early support for Python 3 (regardless of what
wsgi standard it will provide) because it may trigger a lot of python
users to adopt Web2py as it might be
I know it's on the radar, but I don't know to what extent. I am guessing
that it won't be an immediate priority until operating systems like Mac OS
X, Ubuntu, and RHEL/CentOS start shipping Python3 by default. Python3, being
the next-generation of Python as it were, is still new and these
When Python 3.x gets better than Python 2.x (faster, better
concurrency, better web support), than we will consider a web3py. Do
not worry about the statements above. I am prepared to bet money there
will be a 2.8 and it not there will be a fork from sombody.
On Jul 11, 8:52 am, Ross Peoples
You might be very secured by this presentation :
http://www.google.com/events/io/2011/sessions/python-google.html
Guido himself expose a planning of Python future...
Very instructive presentation actually... A lot of littles insides
informations for outsider...
Richard
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at
On Monday, 11 July 2011 16:13:39 UTC+2, Massimo Di Pierro wrote:
Do not worry about the statements above. I am prepared to bet money there
will be a 2.8 and it not there will be a fork from sombody.
:)
I have seen a lot of quite strong statements from various members of the
core Python
The other wild idea, of course, is to keep web2py on Python 2.x (assuming
that is going to be around as long as you suggest) and make web3py for
Python 3.x, IOW a new framework where different ideas can be tried without
affecting backward compatiblityI'm sure you have played with this idea
I'd be interested to see what something like 2to3 would say about web2py's
compatibility with Python3:
http://docs.python.org/library/2to3.html
http://diveintopython3.org/porting-code-to-python-3-with-2to3.html
It may, in fact, be necessary. According to
http://docs.python.org/py3k/whatsnew/3.0.html:
It is not recommended to try to write source code that runs unchanged under
both Python 2.6 and 3.0; you’d have to use a very contorted coding style,
e.g. avoiding print statements, metaclasses, and
22 matches
Mail list logo
