On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:34:55 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > * Steven D'Aprano: >> >> Nobody is trying to understate the complexity of writing a large >> application that supports both 2.6 and 3.x, or of taking an existing >> library written for 2.5 and upgrading it to support 3.1. But the >> magnitude of these tasks is no greater (and potentially smaller) than >> supporting (say) 2.3 through 2.5. To describe it as "hopeless" is >> simply mistaken and weakens your credibility. > > It seems that people here put a lot of meaning into "hopeless"...
Only the dictionary meaning. > Would it be better to say that it's "hard" or "very hard" or > "impractical for the novice"? I don't even know why you feel the need to discuss 2.x in a book that's about 3.x. But given that you feel the need to, all I can ask is that you don't overstate the difficulty. For a new project that doesn't rely on third- party libraries that don't support 3.x, supporting 2.6 - 3.x shouldn't be much harder than (say) supporting 2.3 through 2.5. That is to say, of course it's hard, but it's always hard to support a range of versions with different capabilities. The transition to 3.x is no different in that regard. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
