There is a lot of individual, anecdotal data in threads like this... For example, I need web2py to provide python 2.6 compatibility for at least another 5 years. I'm going to need python 2.7 compatibility for at least another 10 years if not longer. And I couldn't care less for python 3 compatibility right now - although I could probably use it occasionally, it isn't essential for my needs. But someone else might disagree, Anthony provided a perfectly valid use case.
This just proves how anecdotal data (mine or someone else's) can be deceiving. I see web2py as a great tool for the enterprise development, due to it's backwards compatibility. The term "antiquated" never even crossed my mind and it never even occurred to me that someone could perceive web2p as such. Again, anecdotal data... If I try to look at the bigger picture (still without any real statistics or research, just common sense), I also think having "web3py" that offers python 2.7+ and 3+ compatibility is a perfect solution for the future. As the demand for python 3 rises, so will patches and contributions for web3py... ;) Right?? :) Regards, Ales On Friday, June 7, 2013 12:16:13 AM UTC+2, Derek wrote: > > Well, that's an issue with breaking compatibility. I've seen it happen > several times with Python 2.x to 3.x, Zope 2.x to 3.x and the whole Zope > Five fiasco. The problem is when you break compatibility you are > essentially telling your developers that all that hard work they did will > have to be done all over again. At that point, the developers say "you > know, there were some warts that i just wasn't comfortable with, lets see > what the other options are" and the community as a result gets forked. So, > I'd love to see Web3Py, but just knowing that it's coming around the corner > makes me pause if I think about releasing something on the 'antiquated' > (its not, but that's the perception) Web2py... > > On Thursday, June 6, 2013 12:50:57 PM UTC-7, Michael Lutynski wrote: >> >> That's not true for me. I have been fascinated with web2py for the >> longest time, and now I'm finally able to use it, I was sincerely hoping >> that there would be a Python 3 option. But since I do not know anything >> about web2py at all at this point, it makes it a daunting proposition to >> consider helping to port it. >> >> It seems that for existing web2py users, there might not be the much >> incentive to help porting it because of the investment with Python 2.x, but >> that's not true for newcomers who will want Python 3, like me. >> >> On Saturday, 13 April 2013 10:48:17 UTC-7, Massimo Di Pierro wrote: >>> >>> Nobody helped with it. That shows how much interest there is here about >>> Python 3.x. >> >> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
