OK, this seems weird to me: For what it’s worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and
that’s with the “easy” subset of 2.6+ and either 3.2+ or 3.3+)
ouch.
However the way it "used" to work is that the newest version, with all the new features, would quickly become the dominant version within a year or two.
This seems completely contradictory to me: Yes, the 3.* transition can be difficult, thus the need to support 1.*. But if you are still supporting 2.6, then clearly "the newest version, with all the new features, would quickly become the dominant version within a year or two" But there are those use cases that seem to require sticking with old version for ages, even if there have not been substantial incomparable changes. So we could be on version 2.12 now, and you'd still need to support 2.6, and still be working in a legacy, least common denominator language. How does this have anything to do with the 3.* transition? But plenty of us are kind of stuck on 2.7 at this point -- we can upgrade, but can't accommodate a major shift (for me it's currently wxPython that's the blocker -- that may be the only one. Others are either supported or small enough that we could handle the port ourselves.) But anyway, if you don't hate 2.6 back in the day, why hate it now? (yet, I know Donald didn't use the "hate" word). I guess my pint is that you either would much prefer to be working with the latest and greatest cool features or not -- but if you do the problem at this point isn't anything about py3, it's about the fact that many of us are required to support old versions, period. -Chris However I can't really justify for most situations supporting _only_ those
things because even today they are not the dominant version (or really close to it in any number I have access too). This means that if I want to take advantage of something newer I'm essentially dropping the largest part of the ecosystem.
Are you primarily writing packages for others to use? if so, then yes. But I wonder how many people are in that camp? Don't most of us spend most of our time writing our own purpose-built code? That might be a nice thing to see in a survey, actually. -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chris.Barker@noaa.gov