Agreed, I think web2py on Py3 is pointless. An entirely different project, called, let's say, web3py, which runs on Py3 is a different animal altogether...
On 13 July 2011 15:50, Anthony <abasta...@gmail.com> wrote: > The problem is, it would break backward compatibility. > > On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 12:54:57 AM UTC-4, Rahul wrote: > >> Its true that there are existing python versions 2.6, 2.7.x but what I >> would like is Web2py support for Python 3. >> Reasons: >> 1. We should provide early support for Python 3 (regardless of what >> wsgi standard it will provide) because it may trigger a lot of python >> users to adopt Web2py as it might be the ONLY Full Stack Framework >> that will be supporting Python 3 >> 2. Python 3.x is the future of Python (I see this to be very true) >> Eventually we would all be using Python 3.x in our production >> systems. >> 3. Lets progress rather than remaining stagnant with existing versions >> of Python only. I mean Why Not the latest Python ?? >> >> Cheers, Rahul D >> >> >> On Jul 12, 5:38 pm, pbreit <pbreit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I suspect 2.6 is going to be popular for some time since that's what's >> in >> > the current Ubuntu LTS (10.04). > >
