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 <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > On Jul 13, 9:28 am, Caleb Hattingh <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> 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 (regardless of what >>>> wsgi standard it will provide) because it may trigger a lot of python >>>> users to adopt Web2py as it might be the ONLY Full Stack Framework >>>> that will be supporting Python 3 >>>> 2. Python 3.x is the future of Python (I see this to be very true) >>>> Eventually we would all be using Python 3.x in our production >>>> systems. >>>> 3. Lets progress rather than remaining stagnant with existing versions >>>> of Python only. I mean Why Not the latest Python ?? >> >>>> Cheers, Rahul D >> >>>> On Jul 12, 5:38 pm, pbreit <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> I suspect 2.6 is going to be popular for some time since that's what's >>>> in >>>>> the current Ubuntu LTS (10.04).
