Python usage numbers
ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com
Sun Feb 12 02:21:01 CET 2012
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/11/2012 3:02 PM, Eric Snow wrote:
>> I'm thinking about this partly because of the discussion on
>> python-ideas about the perceived challenges of Unicode in Python 3.
>> For instance, if frameworks (like django and numpy) could completely
>> hide the arguable challenges of Unicode in Python 3--and most projects
>> were built on top of frameworks--then general efforts for making
>> Unicode easier in Python 3 should go toward helping framework writers.
> Huh? I'll admit I'm a novice, but isn't Unicode mostly trivial in py3k
> compared to 2.x? Or are you referring to porting 2.x to 3.x? I've been
> under the impression that Unicode in 2.x can be painful at times, but
> easy in 3.x.
> I've been using 3.2 and Unicode hasn't been much of an issue.
My expectation is that yours is the common experience. However, in at
least one current thread (on python-ideas) and at a variety of times
in the past, _some_ people have found Unicode in Python 3 to make more
work. So that got me to thinking about who's experience is the
general case, and if any concerns broadly apply to more that
framework/library writers (like django, jinja, twisted, etc.). Having
usage statistics would be helpful in identifying the impact of things
like Unicode in Python 3.
More information about the Python-list