(original) (raw)

This is also my approach, and the one that I'm encouraging throughout Microsoft as we start putting out more Python packages for stuff.

Top-posted from my Windows Phone

From: Barry Warsaw
Sent: �12/�13/�2014 7:19
To: python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: \[Python-Dev\] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition

On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:

\>For what it�s worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and
\>that�s with the �easy� subset of 2.6+ and either 3.2+ or 3.3+) and doing so
\>does make the language far less fun for me than when I was writing 2.x only
\>code.

For myself, the way I'd put it is:

With the libraries I maintain, I generally write Python 2/3 compatible code,
targeting Python 2.7 and 3.4, with 2.6, 3.3, and 3.2 support as bonuses,
although I will not contort too much to support those older versions. Doing
so does make the language far less fun for me than when I am writing 3.x only
code. All applications I write in pure Python 3, targeting Python 3.4, unless
my dependencies are not all available in Python 3, or I haven't yet had the
cycles/resources to port to Python 3\. Writing and maintaining applications in
Python 2 is far less fun than doing so in Python 3.

Cheers,
\-Barry
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/steve.dower%40microsoft.com