Asking for prophecy
Terry Reedy
tjreedy at udel.edu
Fri Mar 6 19:23:28 EST 2009
Stefan Spoettl wrote:
> In the pass it was always a good idea to use the newest Python verison
> for starting the development of a new application. First one could
> benefit from the additional features and second one could be sure that
> the community would have been passing during development.
>
> Nowadays we have at least three Python versions (2.5, 2.6, 3.0) on our
> machines and - damned! - I really don’t know which version I should use
> for my next development. The Unix-like systems as much as the major part
> of well maintained third party libraries are remaining "penetrantly" on
> 2.5. Why the vangard of the community don’t like to use at least 2.6 for
> bridging to the future Python? Is this the mutiny against the empery of
> the BDFL or is the vangard just asking for some more time? If I want to
> attest my personal attachment to the king by using 3.0, what will
> happen? Will I be deserted someday?
It typically takes about a year before *most* 3-rd party libs have been
converted. Windows binaries for C extentions tend to be slowest to
arrive. Many people routinely skip 2.x.0 and wait to 2.x.1 both to skip
initial bugs and wait for libraries. I have no idea if 2.6 conversions
are slower than usual or not.
3.0 conversion was expected to be a bit slower. On the other hand, it
is an opportunity to increase mindshare for libs which do make the
conversion.
I expect usage of Py3 will increase noticeably when 3.1 comes out in a
few months with some notable fixes and improvements.
I think there is at least half a chance that 2.7, which should arrive
with 3.2, will be the last 2.x version.
In the meanwhile, use whichever one meets your needs. I am currently
using 3.0, but have 2.5 loaded in case I want to do something that needs
3rd-party libs before they are available for 3.x.
Terry Jan Reedy
More information about the Python-list
mailing list