Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: [...] Barry, Petr, any of the other folks working on distro level C extension ports, perhaps one of you would be willing to consider an update to the C extension porting guide to be more in line with Brett's latest version of the Python level porting guide? I can make it a 20%-time project starting in January, if no-one beats me to it. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
On 2014-12-10, Bruno Cauet brunoca...@gmail.com wrote: Nathaniel, I'm not sure about that: even if the code is 2- and 3-compatible you'll pick one runtime. Why do you say that? I have both installed. I use both. Sometimes it depends on which OS/distro I'm running, sometimes other reasons prevail. -- Grant -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Grant Edwards invalid@invalid.invalid wrote: On 2014-12-10, Bruno Cauet brunoca...@gmail.com wrote: Nathaniel, I'm not sure about that: even if the code is 2- and 3-compatible you'll pick one runtime. Why do you say that? I have both installed. I use both. Sometimes it depends on which OS/distro I'm running, sometimes other reasons prevail. Just to give another anecdote, I wrote myself a little tool last night for visualizing healthcare scenarios to help my family decide which insurance plan to choose this year. I didn't realize until I added 'subTest's to the tests and mistakenly invoked them as python -m test instead of python3 -m test that I'd accidentally written it to be 2/3 compatible! I took the subTest back out, and tests pass with both interpreters. -- Zach (If such a tool could be useful to anyone, I can post it on BitBucket/GitHub. Its support for all possibilities is far from complete, but it helped us a bit. Also, I make no guarantees that you won't want to gouge your eyes out reading the code, but that *shouldn't* happen ;) -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
On 13 Dec 2014 05:19, Petr Viktorin encu...@gmail.com wrote: Also keep in mind that not all Python libraries are on PyPI. For non-Python projects with Python bindings (think video players, OpenCV, systemd, Samba), distribution via PyPI doesn't make much sense. And since the Python bindings are usually second-class citizens, the porting doesn't have a high priority. If anyone is wondering why their favorite Linux distribution is stuck with Python 2 – well, I can only speak for Fedora, but nowadays most of what's left are CPython bindings. No pylint --py3k or 2to3 will help there... That's a good point. I actually think https://docs.python.org/3/howto/cporting.html#cporting-howto is actually in a worse state than the state the Python level porting guide was in until Brett's latest round of updates, as it covers the underlying technical details of the incompatibilities moreso than the available tools and recommended processes for *executing* a migration. For example, replacing a handcrafted Python extension with a normal C library plus cffi, Cython or SWIG generated Python bindings can deliver both an easier to maintain extension *and* Python 3 compatibility. Similarly, converting an extension from C to Cython outright (without a separate C library) can provide both benefits. It's mainly when converting to one of those isn't desirable and/or feasible that you really need to worry about C API level porting. For that, tools like Dave Malcolm's static CPython extension analyser for gcc could potentially be helpful (as pylint was to Brett's update to the Python level guide), and Lennart also provides some more detailed practical suggestions in http://python3porting.com/cextensions.html I'm sure there are other useful techniques that can be employed, but aren't necessarily well known outside the folks that have been busy implementing these migrations. Barry, Petr, any of the other folks working on distro level C extension ports, perhaps one of you would be willing to consider an update to the C extension porting guide to be more in line with Brett's latest version of the Python level porting guide? Regards, Nick. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
So, I'm more than aware of how to write Python 2/3 compatible code. I've ported 10-20 libraries to Python 3 and write Python 2/3 compatible code at work. I'm also aware of how much writing 2/3 compatible code makes me hate Python as a language. It'll be a happy day when one of the two languages dies so that I never have to write code like that again. However, my point was that just because the core libraries by usage are *starting* to roll out Python 3 support doesn't mean that things are easy or convenient yet. There are too many libraries in the long tail which fulfill semi-common purposes and haven't been moved over yet. Yeah, sure, they haven't been updated in years... but neither has the language they're built on. I suppose what I'm saying is that the long tail of libraries is far more valuable than it seems the Python3 zealots are giving it credit for. Please don't claim it's easy to move over just because merely most of the top 20 libraries have been moved over. :-/ -Mark On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Dan Stromberg drsali...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Mark Roberts wiz...@gmail.com wrote: I disagree. I know there's a huge focus on The Big Libraries (and wholesale migration is all but impossible without them), but the long tail of libraries is still incredibly important. It's like saying that migrating the top 10 Perl libraries to Perl 6 would allow people to completely ignore all of CPAN. It just doesn't make sense. Things in the Python 2.x vs 3.x world aren't that bad. See: https://python3wos.appspot.com/ and https://wiki.python.org/moin/PortingPythonToPy3k http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/~strombrg/Intro-to-Python/ (writing code to run on 2.x and 3.x) I believe just about everything I've written over the last few years either ran on 2.x and 3.x unmodified, or ran on 3.x alone. If you go the former route, you don't need to wait for your libraries to be updated. I usually run pylint twice for my projects (after each change, prior to checkin), once with a 2.x interpreter, and once with a 3.x interpreter (using http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/svn/this-pylint/trunk/this-pylint) , but I gather pylint has the option of running on a 2.x interpreter and warning about anything that wouldn't work on 3.x. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
Also keep in mind that not all Python libraries are on PyPI. For non-Python projects with Python bindings (think video players, OpenCV, systemd, Samba), distribution via PyPI doesn't make much sense. And since the Python bindings are usually second-class citizens, the porting doesn't have a high priority. If anyone is wondering why their favorite Linux distribution is stuck with Python 2 – well, I can only speak for Fedora, but nowadays most of what's left are CPython bindings. No pylint --py3k or 2to3 will help there... On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Mark Roberts wiz...@gmail.com wrote: So, I'm more than aware of how to write Python 2/3 compatible code. I've ported 10-20 libraries to Python 3 and write Python 2/3 compatible code at work. I'm also aware of how much writing 2/3 compatible code makes me hate Python as a language. It'll be a happy day when one of the two languages dies so that I never have to write code like that again. However, my point was that just because the core libraries by usage are *starting* to roll out Python 3 support doesn't mean that things are easy or convenient yet. There are too many libraries in the long tail which fulfill semi-common purposes and haven't been moved over yet. Yeah, sure, they haven't been updated in years... but neither has the language they're built on. I suppose what I'm saying is that the long tail of libraries is far more valuable than it seems the Python3 zealots are giving it credit for. Please don't claim it's easy to move over just because merely most of the top 20 libraries have been moved over. :-/ -Mark On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Dan Stromberg drsali...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Mark Roberts wiz...@gmail.com wrote: I disagree. I know there's a huge focus on The Big Libraries (and wholesale migration is all but impossible without them), but the long tail of libraries is still incredibly important. It's like saying that migrating the top 10 Perl libraries to Perl 6 would allow people to completely ignore all of CPAN. It just doesn't make sense. Things in the Python 2.x vs 3.x world aren't that bad. See: https://python3wos.appspot.com/ and https://wiki.python.org/moin/PortingPythonToPy3k http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/~strombrg/Intro-to-Python/ (writing code to run on 2.x and 3.x) I believe just about everything I've written over the last few years either ran on 2.x and 3.x unmodified, or ran on 3.x alone. If you go the former route, you don't need to wait for your libraries to be updated. I usually run pylint twice for my projects (after each change, prior to checkin), once with a 2.x interpreter, and once with a 3.x interpreter (using http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/svn/this-pylint/trunk/this-pylint) , but I gather pylint has the option of running on a 2.x interpreter and warning about anything that wouldn't work on 3.x. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
On 12/11/2014 09:48 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
A possible reason: one is developing an app expected to be released
fall 2015 after the 3.5 release and the app depends on something new
in 3.5. I must admit though that I cannot think of any such thing now
for 3.5. For 3.3 there was the new unicode, which was first committed
about a year before release. For 3.4, there was asyncio, but it was
not committed until beta1, and was hardly usable then.
So it was a defensible position. Anyone who would check 3.5 could
just as well check 3.4 and have most of the same impact on the summary.
The NumPy and SciPy developers who are implementing support for PEP 465
('@' as a dedicated matrix multiplication operator) will likely want to
test against a development version of 3.5 at some point. Using 3.5 isn't
strictly required, though, since supporting the @ operator is mostly a
matter of implementing the new __matmul__ methods and one can test those
by calling them directly instead of using the new operator.
MMR...
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
On Dec 12, 2014, at 08:07 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote: If anyone is wondering why their favorite Linux distribution is stuck with Python 2 – well, I can only speak for Fedora, but nowadays most of what's left are CPython bindings. No pylint --py3k or 2to3 will help there... It's true that some of these are tough. I tried and failed a few times to port Xapian to Python 3. The issue was opened upstream 6 years ago and it's still unresolved: http://trac.xapian.org/ticket/346 OTOH, I ported dbus-python to Python 3 and that worked out much better; we've had solid Python 3 bindings for several years now, which allowed us to port many important Debian/Ubuntu tools to Python 3 and more importantly, do all our new work in Python 3. With other big toolkits like GObject introspection working on Python 3, there's a lot you can do. IME, if the underlying model is string/bytes clean, then the C extension port can sometimes be easier than pure-Python, thanks to cpp games. D-Bus's model is pretty clean, Xapian I found to be not so much (it doesn't help that Xapian is C++ ;). We're actually not terribly far from switching Debian and Ubuntu's default to Python 3. On Debian, the big blocker is the BTS code (which uses SOAP) and on Ubuntu it's the launchpadlib stack. I hope to find time after Jessie to work on the former, and before 16.04 LTS to work on the latter. Not that I disagree that there's a long tail of code that would still benefit a significant population if it got ported to Python 3. By far Python 3 is a better language, with a better stdlib, so the work is worth it. Cheers, -Barry -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
Remarks heard form updated. Nathaniel, I'm not sure about that: even if the code is 2- and 3-compatible you'll pick one runtime. 2 others questions now mention writing polyglot code. By the way I published the survey on HN, /r/programming /r/python: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8730156 http://redd.it/2ovlwm http://redd.it/2ovls4 Feel free to publish it anywhere else, to get as many answers as possible. Bruno 2014-12-10 18:24 GMT+01:00 Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com: On 10 Dec 2014 17:16, Ian Cordasco graffatcolmin...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote: On Dec 10, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Bruno Cauet brunoca...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Last year a survey was conducted on python 2 and 3 usage. Here is the 2014 edition, slightly updated (from 9 to 11 questions). It should not take you more than 1 minute to fill. I would be pleased if you took that time. Here's the url: http://goo.gl/forms/tDTcm8UzB3 I'll publish the results around the end of the year. Last year results: https://wiki.python.org/moin/2.x-vs-3.x-survey Just going to say http://d.stufft.io/image/0z1841112o0C is a hard question to answer, since most code I write is both. The same holds for me. That question appears to have just grown a compatible with both option. It might make sense to add a similar option to the following question about what you use for personal projects. -n ___ Python-Dev mailing list python-...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brunocauet%40gmail.com -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
I hesitated a while before deciding not to include it! Apart from python core development what would be the reasons to work mostly on this version ? I'll fix the omission right ahead. — Tagada tsouin tsouin On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Cauet brunoca...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the url: http://goo.gl/forms/tDTcm8UzB3 I'll publish the results around the end of the year. On Which versions do you use?, 3.5 is not included. My primary Python 3 build on here is a 3.5 built from trunk. :) ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list-- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Bruno Cauet brunoca...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Last year a survey was conducted on python 2 and 3 usage. Here is the 2014 edition, slightly updated (from 9 to 11 questions). It should not take you more than 1 minute to fill. I would be pleased if you took that time. Here's the url: http://goo.gl/forms/tDTcm8UzB3 I'll publish the results around the end of the year. Last year results: https://wiki.python.org/moin/2.x-vs-3.x-survey Thank you Bruno ___ Python-Dev mailing list python-...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/g.rodola%40gmail.com I still think the only *real* obstacle remains the lack of important packages such as twisted, gevent and pika which haven't been ported yet. With those ones ported switching to Python 3 *right now* is not only possible and relatively easy, but also convenient. -- Giampaolo - http://grodola.blogspot.com -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
I disagree. I know there's a huge focus on The Big Libraries (and wholesale migration is all but impossible without them), but the long tail of libraries is still incredibly important. It's like saying that migrating the top 10 Perl libraries to Perl 6 would allow people to completely ignore all of CPAN. It just doesn't make sense. -Mark On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:47 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' g.rod...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Bruno Cauet brunoca...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Last year a survey was conducted on python 2 and 3 usage. Here is the 2014 edition, slightly updated (from 9 to 11 questions). It should not take you more than 1 minute to fill. I would be pleased if you took that time. Here's the url: http://goo.gl/forms/tDTcm8UzB3 I'll publish the results around the end of the year. Last year results: https://wiki.python.org/moin/2.x-vs-3.x-survey Thank you Bruno ___ Python-Dev mailing list python-...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/g.rodola%40gmail.com I still think the only *real* obstacle remains the lack of important packages such as twisted, gevent and pika which haven't been ported yet. With those ones ported switching to Python 3 *right now* is not only possible and relatively easy, but also convenient. -- Giampaolo - http://grodola.blogspot.com ___ Python-Dev mailing list python-...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/wizzat%40gmail.com -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Mark Roberts wiz...@gmail.com wrote: I disagree. I know there's a huge focus on The Big Libraries (and wholesale migration is all but impossible without them), but the long tail of libraries is still incredibly important. It's like saying that migrating the top 10 Perl libraries to Perl 6 would allow people to completely ignore all of CPAN. It just doesn't make sense. Things in the Python 2.x vs 3.x world aren't that bad. See: https://python3wos.appspot.com/ and https://wiki.python.org/moin/PortingPythonToPy3k http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/~strombrg/Intro-to-Python/ (writing code to run on 2.x and 3.x) I believe just about everything I've written over the last few years either ran on 2.x and 3.x unmodified, or ran on 3.x alone. If you go the former route, you don't need to wait for your libraries to be updated. I usually run pylint twice for my projects (after each change, prior to checkin), once with a 2.x interpreter, and once with a 3.x interpreter (using http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/svn/this-pylint/trunk/this-pylint) , but I gather pylint has the option of running on a 2.x interpreter and warning about anything that wouldn't work on 3.x. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 3:14:42 PM Dan Stromberg drsali...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Mark Roberts wiz...@gmail.com wrote: I disagree. I know there's a huge focus on The Big Libraries (and wholesale migration is all but impossible without them), but the long tail of libraries is still incredibly important. It's like saying that migrating the top 10 Perl libraries to Perl 6 would allow people to completely ignore all of CPAN. It just doesn't make sense. Things in the Python 2.x vs 3.x world aren't that bad. See: https://python3wos.appspot.com/ and https://wiki.python.org/moin/PortingPythonToPy3k http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/~strombrg/Intro-to-Python/ (writing code to run on 2.x and 3.x) I believe just about everything I've written over the last few years either ran on 2.x and 3.x unmodified, or ran on 3.x alone. If you go the former route, you don't need to wait for your libraries to be updated. I usually run pylint twice for my projects (after each change, prior to checkin), once with a 2.x interpreter, and once with a 3.x interpreter (using http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/svn/this-pylint/trunk/this-pylint) , but I gather pylint has the option of running on a 2.x interpreter and warning about anything that wouldn't work on 3.x. Pylint 1.4 has a --py3k flag to run only checks related to Python 3 compatibility under Python 2. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
2014-12-11 15:47 GMT+01:00 Giampaolo Rodola' g.rod...@gmail.com: I still think the only *real* obstacle remains the lack of important packages such as twisted, gevent and pika which haven't been ported yet. twisted core works on python 3, right now. Contribute to Twisted if you want to port more code... Or start something new, asyncio (with trollius, it works on Python 2 too). The develpoment branch of gevent supports Python 3, especially if you dont use monkey patching. Ask the developers to release a version, at least with experimental Python 3 support. I don't know pika. I read Pika Python AMQP Client Library. You may take a look at https://github.com/dzen/aioamqp if you would like to play with asyncio. With those ones ported switching to Python 3 *right now* is not only possible and relatively easy, but also convenient. Victor -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
On Dec 11, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: I disagree. I know there's a huge focus on The Big Libraries (and wholesale migration is all but impossible without them), but the long tail of libraries is still incredibly important. It is, but I think it's increasingly the case that packages which don't support Python 3 will either be shamed into it, important enough to get high quality contributed ports, or will be effectively abandoned and alternatives found. This is a big change from where we were several years ago. All my new $work code is Python 3. Some libraries are bilingual but applications start and stay in Python 3-only. Just recently the last two dependencies in Mailman 3 that blocked us from beginning the port to Python 3 have been replaced[1]. We have active branches that are slowly porting own code now[2]. While we can't quite declare victory yet, and there will always be legacy code for which there just aren't the resources to port, I think it's perfectly reasonable for Python 3 to be the default target version for any new code (and a lot of existing code). Cheers, -Barry [1] SQLAlchemy replaced Storm, and Falcon replaced restish in our trunk. [2] https://code.launchpad.net/~barry/mailman/py3 and https://code.launchpad.net/~raj-abhilash1/mailman/py3 pgpsEg8uVRAi1.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
On 12/10/2014 5:04 PM, Bruno Cauet wrote: I hesitated a while before deciding not to include it! Apart from python core development what would be the reasons to work mostly on this version ? where 'This version' == 3.5. A possible reason: one is developing an app expected to be released fall 2015 after the 3.5 release and the app depends on something new in 3.5. I must admit though that I cannot think of any such thing now for 3.5. For 3.3 there was the new unicode, which was first committed about a year before release. For 3.4, there was asyncio, but it was not committed until beta1, and was hardly usable then. So it was a defensible position. Anyone who would check 3.5 could just as well check 3.4 and have most of the same impact on the summary. -- Terry Jan Reedy -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
On Dec 10, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Bruno Cauet brunoca...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Last year a survey was conducted on python 2 and 3 usage. Here is the 2014 edition, slightly updated (from 9 to 11 questions). It should not take you more than 1 minute to fill. I would be pleased if you took that time. Here's the url: http://goo.gl/forms/tDTcm8UzB3 http://goo.gl/forms/tDTcm8UzB3 I'll publish the results around the end of the year. Last year results: https://wiki.python.org/moin/2.x-vs-3.x-survey https://wiki.python.org/moin/2.x-vs-3.x-survey Just going to say http://d.stufft.io/image/0z1841112o0C http://d.stufft.io/image/0z1841112o0C is a hard question to answer, since most code I write is both. --- Donald Stufft PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote: On Dec 10, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Bruno Cauet brunoca...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Last year a survey was conducted on python 2 and 3 usage. Here is the 2014 edition, slightly updated (from 9 to 11 questions). It should not take you more than 1 minute to fill. I would be pleased if you took that time. Here's the url: http://goo.gl/forms/tDTcm8UzB3 I'll publish the results around the end of the year. Last year results: https://wiki.python.org/moin/2.x-vs-3.x-survey Just going to say http://d.stufft.io/image/0z1841112o0C is a hard question to answer, since most code I write is both. The same holds for me. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
On 10 Dec 2014 17:16, Ian Cordasco graffatcolmin...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote: On Dec 10, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Bruno Cauet brunoca...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Last year a survey was conducted on python 2 and 3 usage. Here is the 2014 edition, slightly updated (from 9 to 11 questions). It should not take you more than 1 minute to fill. I would be pleased if you took that time. Here's the url: http://goo.gl/forms/tDTcm8UzB3 I'll publish the results around the end of the year. Last year results: https://wiki.python.org/moin/2.x-vs-3.x-survey Just going to say http://d.stufft.io/image/0z1841112o0C is a hard question to answer, since most code I write is both. The same holds for me. That question appears to have just grown a compatible with both option. It might make sense to add a similar option to the following question about what you use for personal projects. -n -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Cauet brunoca...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the url: http://goo.gl/forms/tDTcm8UzB3 I'll publish the results around the end of the year. On Which versions do you use?, 3.5 is not included. My primary Python 3 build on here is a 3.5 built from trunk. :) ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Bruno Cauet brunoca...@gmail.com wrote: I hesitated a while before deciding not to include it! Apart from python core development what would be the reasons to work mostly on this version ? I'll fix the omission right ahead. My main reason is that I'm running Debian Wheezy here (the current stable release of Debian), and Wheezy ships with Python 3.2. If I want to use anything newer than 3.2, I have to either hunt down a backported package, or build from source. And if I'm going to build from source (which, for me, is easier than digging through wheezy-backports anyway), I may as well build from Mercurial on the default branch rather than taking a specific version tarball. (For what it's worth, Debian Jessie - the next release - ships with 3.4, so on my Jessie boxes I don't bother building Python from source.) ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
