On Mar 6, 1:23 pm, "andrew cooke" <and...@acooke.org> wrote: > 3 and 2.6 are compatible. so develop on 3, to make sure you don't use old > junk, and then switch to 2.6 if you need to. there are a few wrinkles in > doing so, but it is not a big problem. > > 3.0 is a nicer language. it's cleaner and more consistent. i think > important libraries will move there.
Probably, but until gmpy is available for 3.0, 3.0 does not exist yet as far as I'm concerned. > no-one wants to do a perl. it's the > likely future and you can always jump back to 2.6 if needed. > > and in the long term, we will all die. > > andrew > > > > Stefan Spoettl wrote: > > In the pass it was always a good idea to use the newest Python verison for > > starting the development of a new application. First one could benefit > > from the additional features and second one could be sure that the > > community would have been passing during development. > > > Nowadays we have at least three Python versions (2.5, 2.6, 3.0) on our > > machines and - damned! - I really don't know which version I should use > > for my next development. The Unix-like systems as much as the major part > > of well maintained third party libraries are remaining "penetrantly" on > > 2.5. Why the vangard of the community don't like to use at least 2.6 for > > bridging to the future Python? Is this the mutiny against the empery of > > the BDFL or is the vangard just asking for some more time? If I want to > > attest my personal attachment to the king by using 3.0, what will happen? > > Will I be deserted someday? > > > Stefan-- > >http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list