Python 2.7 or 3.1
philip at semanchuk.com
Wed Oct 27 05:53:57 CEST 2010
On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:10 PM, Jorge Biquez wrote:
> Hello Christian and all .
> Thanks for the comments. I am newbie to Python trying to learn all the comments, that , by the way, I am very impressed of the knowledge of the people present in this list.
> I was wondering if you can comment more about what alternatives to use instead to MySql. My web solutions do not need "all the power" of a true database, I even was wondering if I couldbe able to put simple dBase files (yes, dBase files) with my web solutions.
> - Any comments you can do on what to use 2.7 or 3.1? ( I guess 2.7 for what I have read)
> - Maybe should be another subject but... Any comments on using dBase format file with Python?
Python comes with SQLite "baked in", meaning you don't have to install anything extra to get the full power of SQLite. Depending on what you want to do, that might be perfect for your needs. It's been part of Python since 2.5.
If you need a heavy-duty database, I recommend checking out PostgreSQL. I've always found it solid and easy to use.
> At 08:50 p.m. 26/10/2010, you wrote:
>> Am 27.10.2010 03:38, schrieb Jorge Biquez:
>> > And what about if I only were to develop for the web? I mean web
>> > applications, Mysql, etc? It would be better to still be in 2.7?
>> Most frameworks and database adapters at least target Python 2.6+ as
>> their main Python version. I guess the majority has no or only
>> experimental support for Python 3.1. The overall situation improves
>> every week.
>> PS: I recommend against MySQL, if you need the full power or a RDBMS.
>> Just try to combine foreign keys with database triggers and you'll see
>> which major features are still broken in MySQL. But that's just my point
>> of view as a power user.
More information about the Python-list