The potential for a Python 2.8
regebro.wordpress.com
The potential for a Python 2.8
1–5 of 5 posts
Re: The potential for a Python 2.8
#2I think PG should start flagging "Python 2.8" and "Python 3 sucks" posts. All that could be said, it has been said; what's left is a constant rehashing of old arguments for the sake of a good flamewar.
Re: The potential for a Python 2.8
#3I think PG should start flagging "Python 2.8" and "Python 3 sucks" posts. All that could be said, it has been said; what's left is a constant rehashing of old arguments for the sake of a good flamewar.
But this isn't a "Python 3 sucks" post, or even a "Python 2 sucks" post. It's a "we don't really need a Python 2.8, just use 3 for those features" post.
Did you even read the post?
Re: The potential for a Python 2.8
#4I just spent a few days bringing a fairly old website on Django 1.2 up to the latest and greatest stable release and was surprised how, with good test coverage, you can just swap the new library in, fix broken tests and try running it, fixing as you go until it runs.
It's given me more confidence to not write off Py3 as a pipe-dream, once Django moves into the Python3 world.
EDIT: Thanks to six, Django does run on Python 3. I just ported an in house app to Python 3 by changing one print statement and some relative imports. Too easy.
Re: The potential for a Python 2.8
#5I think PG should start flagging "Python 2.8" and "Python 3 sucks" posts. All that could be said, it has been said; what's left is a constant rehashing of old arguments for the sake of a good flamewar.
But this isn't a "Python 3 sucks" post, or even a "Python 2 sucks" post. It's a "we don't really need a Python 2.8, just use 3 for those features" post. Did you even read the post?
Yes, but even just by talking about the topic, it's basically re-opening the old can of worms. Let it be, people.