I think for new projects one should go with 3.x this is the right thing to do. If you require a module that's 2.x only it's easy enough to port it unless it depends on some monster like protobuf which doesn't have python3.x support
Pedro. On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk>wrote: > On 08/01/2014 14:15, Roy Smith wrote: > >> As somebody who is still firmly in the 2.x world, I'm worried about the >> idea of a 2.x fork. While I have my doubts that 3.x was a good idea, >> the fact is, it's here. Having the community fractured between the two >> camps is not good. Let's say I'm somebody who wants to contribute some >> OSS. I have three basic choices: >> >> 1) I can make it 3.x only. Now, (nominally) half of the python >> community is unable to realize value from my contribution. >> >> 2) I can make it 2.x only. Same thing in reverse. >> >> 3) I can make it work on both 2.x and 3.x, which means I'm investing >> more effort than I had to if it were single platform. >> >> Any of those alternatives is worse than ideal. Forking 2.x to create an >> unofficial 2.8 release would just prolong the situation. As I've stated >> before, I don't see any urgency in moving to 3.x, and don't imagine >> doing there for another couple of years, but I absolutely can't imagine >> moving to a 2.8 fork. >> >> > The above strikes me as common sense. Surely that's out of place on this > list? :) > > But to be serious why not stick with 2.x if there's no compelling reason > to move? Whatever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? And > before anyone says anything please don't start on about the bytes versus > string debate, I'm fairly certain that there are a substantial number of > application areas that don't run into these problems. > > > -- > My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what > you can do for our language. > > Mark Lawrence > > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list >
-- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
