[python-advocacy] How programming language webpages should be designed

[Carl Karsten]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:30 PM, David Goodger <goodger at python.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 18:56, Carl Karsten <carl at personnelware.com> wrote:
>>> if one promotes Python, should programs use Python 3
>>> syntax and features when many people will still be encountering Python 2
>>> programs? It doesn't help that right at the very start of a beginner's
>>> experience with Python, there's a divergence between the dialects involving
>>> the print statement.
>>
>> If the goal of what this list and thread is about is to promote python
>> (which i am sure it is) then the site should use the new and improved
>> Python 3.
>
> I disagree with you there.

Do you disagree with the goal?

> We're still positioning Python 2.6 as the
> recommended version for most people, right?

Who is we?  I might be able to figure out what I recommend, but it
would be way too small a group, and probably not representative of the
group we are advocating to.

Recommended for what?  I can think of a few cases that would have
different answers, like "need a job at a 2.4 shop" or "I want to write
some scripts for the new Blender" (which requires 3 yay!) or "I want
to be employable"

For someone who has never seen python before, and has no requirements
I tell them to look at 3.  I think they will learn more quicker that
way and can adapt to other things if they need to.

The reason I ask "for what is because it may not need to be consistent
with what is show cased.  That sounds bait-and-switch but I am not
sure it is, or that it is bad.

> Python 3.1 is the
> cutting-edge version for those who know what they're doing. I think
> it's a great idea to put some code on the front page, with a link to
> further examples. Part of that should be a clear (but brief)
> explanation of the differences between 2.x and 3.x, specifically their
> audiences: who they're aimed at. Such a clear explanation is currently
> missing. A "Which Python?" link or sidebar should be prominent.

I thought we wanted code on the front page, not a choice of links to code.

"which version" also sounds like a good thing, but for other reasons
than the goal of promoting.

>
> As long as 2.x is listed first on the left-hand side under downloads,
> we should use 2.x syntax for intros, with links (or sidebars,
> whatever) to 3.x equivalents.

Why is 2 above 3?  Seems to me 3 should be on top.

> When 2.x becomes legacy, then switch
> everything to 3.x.

Depends on what you mean by legacy.  (i bet you love this :)

There may be more to the requirement than just "2 is legacy" -
"popular" maybe, but I don't think so.  I can't think of anything that
makes me say 'stick with 2' so for now I'll focus on what you said,
which i think is correct.

If 2.x isn't legacy now, it wont be for years, like 10.  what event
will happen that hasn't happened yet that defines legacy?

I think now that 3 is out, stable, in production and depended on (yay
Blender!)  that kinda makes 2 legacy.  The reason 2 is used at all is
because of existing code bases.  Pretty sure that's the essence of
legacy.

-- 
Carl K