In message , Jorge
Biquez wrote:
> Would you consider a "not so intelligent move" for a newsbie to
> Python to have maybe version 2.7 and 3.x (if that's possible to be
> running together on the same machine) to have them run and be
> learning mainly in 2.7 and see differences in 3.x?
Sure, why n
I agree +1
Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry.
-Original Message-
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Sender: python-list-bounces+bradenf=hotmail@python.org
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 13:30:38
To:
Subject: Re: Python 2.7 or 3.1
In message , Christian
Heimes wrote:
> Am 29.10.20
In message , Christian
Heimes wrote:
> Am 29.10.2010 23:16, schrieb Lawrence D'Oliveiro:
>
>> In message , Jorge
>> Biquez wrote:
>>
>>> I was wondering if you can comment more about what alternatives to
>>> use instead to MySql. My web solutions do not need "all the power" of
>>> a true databas
I personally would take only one bite at a time. Meaning only do one then do
the other later.
But to each it own :)
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:48:11 -0500
> To: python-list@python.org
> From: jbiq...@icsmx.com
> Subject: Re: Python 2.7 or 3.1
>
> Hello all
>
> Woul
Hello all
Would you consider a "not so intelligent move" for a newsbie to
Python to have maybe version 2.7 and 3.x (if that's possible to be
running together on the same machine) to have them run and be
learning mainly in 2.7 and see differences in 3.x? In my case I am
interested mainly in we
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Braden Faulkner wrote:
> Would it be safe to say that 2.6 would be even better for beginners than?
Let me just come out with a contrary point of view before you go down
that path. If you're seriously considering using sqlite, then you may
be just as well off using
Am 29.10.2010 23:16, schrieb Lawrence D'Oliveiro:
> In message , Jorge
> Biquez wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if you can comment more about what alternatives to
>> use instead to MySql. My web solutions do not need "all the power" of
>> a true database,
>
> Is more than one process likely to acces
In message , Jorge
Biquez wrote:
> I was wondering if you can comment more about what alternatives to
> use instead to MySql. My web solutions do not need "all the power" of
> a true database,
Is more than one process likely to access the data at the same time? If so,
use MySQL.
--
http://mail
Would it be safe to say that 2.6 would be even better for beginners than?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:10 PM, Jorge Biquez wrote:
> Hello Christian and all .
>
> Thanks for the comments. I am newbie to Python trying to learn all the
> comments, that , by the way, I am very impressed of the knowledge of the
> people present in this list.
>
> I was wondering if you can com
Hello Christian and all .
Thanks for the comments. I am newbie to Python trying to learn all
the comments, that , by the way, I am very impressed of the knowledge
of the people present in this list.
I was wondering if you can comment more about what alternatives to
use instead to MySql. My w
Am 27.10.2010 03:38, schrieb Jorge Biquez:
> And what about if I only were to develop for the web? I mean web
> applications, Mysql, etc? It would be better to still be in 2.7?
Most frameworks and database adapters at least target Python 2.6+ as
their main Python version. I guess the majority has
Am 27.10.2010 02:16, schrieb Braden Faulkner:
>
> Which is better for a beginner to get started in Python with?
> Thanks!
It depends on your needs. Most 3rd party library haven't been ported to
Python 3 yet. You'll get more useful stuff with 2.7 or even 2.
Which is better for a beginner to get started in Python with?
Thanks! --
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
14 matches
Mail list logo
