On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:19:26 +0100, Laurent Pointal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : >> When they have to ... >> >> One of the big things about Python is that its penetration slows it >> down. There's more legacy code and interdependant systems around now >> that Python is more successful and more mature. >> >> Here's a thought -- perhaps it would be worth having some good ways to >> interact with Python from Python. Suppose you have some 2.4 code >> someplace, interacting with your mysqldb or whatever, and you don't >> want to rewrite it. So long as you have some kind of object broker, >> you could (plausibly) leave your 2.4 apps running with the old >> interpreter, but wrap them for Python 2.5 and use that in your new >> development. > >KISS please. >
Requiring change is simpler than not requiring change? Okay, perhaps you could make a case, but it's far from obvious this is always true. >> Ditto 3.0. >> >> Rather than having to re-write every interacting component, maybe it >> could be straightforward to all Python2.4 from Python2.5 to execute >> particular library calls. I'm not an expert, I don't know how you'd >> build such a system, but I do know that re-writing stuff is a real >> pain. > >Most of Python 2.4 source code is compatible with Python 2.5. Problems >come with native compiled modules, you must have those for you 2.X >Python version - some times just a compilation is enough. Do you have any data to actually back this assertion up? I have plenty of evidence to the contrary. > >For Python 3.0, AFAIK its a big rewrite and developers know that it will >be uncompatible in large parts with existing code. > How does knowing that it will not be compatible have any bearing on the arguments made by the original poster? It doesn't change anything, as far as I can tell. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
