Home Original page

[Python-Dev] Python 2.x and 3.x use survey, 2014 edition

Ethan Furman ethan at stoneleaf.us
Tue Dec 16 22:52:17 CET 2014 
On 12/16/2014 12:31 PM, Brian Curtin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>>
>>> IMO, you should consider forking your library code for Python2 and
>>> Python3.
>>
>> I don't get the idea that Brett Cannon agrees with you:
>>
>> http://nothingbutsnark.svbtle.com/commentary-on-getting-your-code-to-run-on-python-23
>>
>> While he doesn't explicitly say so, I got the distinct impression reading
>> his recent blog post that he supports one source, not forked sources.
>>
>> In the absence to evidence to the contrary, I think of Brett as the most
>> expert developer in the porting space.
> 
> I'm a few inches shorter than Brett, but having done several sizable
> ports, dual-source has never even on the table. I would prefer the
> "run 2to3 at installation time" option before maintaining two versions
> (which I do not prefer at all in reality).

I have a handful of projects.  The tiny ones are one-source, the biggest one (dbf) is not.

If I had an entire application I would probably split the difference, and just have dual source on a single module to
hold the classes/functions that absolutely-had-to-have-this-or-that-feature (exec (the statement) vs exec (the function)
comes to mind).

--
~Ethan~

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20141216/3540a4b3/attachment.sig>
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list