Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Wichert Akkerman <wich...@wiggy.net> wrote:
>> We could also say that we will clean up the API when we move to Python
>> 3. That is a natural breaking point anyway, so it will not any extra
>> pain for users of the ZCA.
> Except that is precisely what the Python developers have asked
> everyone not to do. So far the story is that the upgrade to Python 3
> can be done largely automatic and a codebase for 2.x and 3.x can be
> maintained automatically and kept in sync.
That's a nice theory, but experience suggests it'll be a right mess. Is
anyone doing this successfully on a project of a comparable size to
Zope? Or Plone? It sounds like fantasy to me. Why? Because if the
compatibility really was that "mechanical" there would probably be a way
to run Python 2 code in Python 3 - and there isn't.
> Once you introduce semantic instead of syntactic differences outside
> Python 3 itself into the whole mix, it gets virtually impossible to
> maintain a codebase that works on both 2.x and 3.x.
This feels like we're trying to solve a different problem.
> So while the Python 3 uptake is still slow, I think we shouldn't add
> more roadblocks onto that path.
A laudable goal, but I don't think it should be a consideration here.
Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -