From dt-sapug at handcraftedcomputers.com.au Tue Mar 3 01:22:20 2009 From: dt-sapug at handcraftedcomputers.com.au (Daryl Tester) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 10:52:20 +1030 Subject: [sapug] Straw poll, of sorts. Message-ID: <49AC783C.4030401@handcraftedcomputers.com.au> I'm just about to start writing myself a C extension module, and as I was pondering how far to make it backward compatible the following thought sprung to mind. What's the oldest and newest version of Python you currently write code for [1]? I still have a fairly sizeable system that's running on Python 1.5.2 (it's slooowly being migrated across on a break/fix basis, which is the only time the customer pays, but alas it rarely breaks), but most of the stuff I do these days is based around 2.5.x (various flavours of .2 to .4) as py2exe doesn't cope well with 2.6. I've done little under 2.6 (certainly nothing that would specifically use any of its features), and apart from library changes (e.g. MIMEWriter's severe makeover) I tend to code in a subset of Python that will allow me to run on a fairly wide range of versions (although not as far back as 1.5.2, I have to remember how to convert between "idioms" like list comprehensions). So what's your version range? 1 - this won't effect my decision, it's just something I'm idly curious about. However, I probably won't code the extension as a type for that reason as I know the extension types have changed between major versions. -- Regards, Daryl Tester "Must have scripting experience; Pearl, Shell, Python, VBScript, Born, Corn, Awk, Sed" -- Unix job advertisement. From twegener at fastmail.fm Tue Mar 3 02:54:57 2009 From: twegener at fastmail.fm (Tim Wegener) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:24:57 +1030 Subject: [sapug] Straw poll, of sorts. In-Reply-To: <49AC783C.4030401@handcraftedcomputers.com.au> References: <49AC783C.4030401@handcraftedcomputers.com.au> Message-ID: <49AC8DF1.5060104@fastmail.fm> Daryl Tester wrote: > I'm just about to start writing myself a C extension module, and as I > was pondering how far to make it backward compatible the following > thought sprung to mind. What's the oldest and newest version of > Python you currently write code for [1]? I generally base this decision based on what the slowest moving (and relevant/maintained) Linux distros ship. Distrowatch.com is handy for checking this. Quick survey: CentOS 4: 2.3 CentOS 5: 2.4 Fedora 7-10: 2.5 Ubuntu 6.06 LTS: 2.4 Ubuntu 8.04 LTS: 2.5 Hence, I generally code for 2.4 or 2.3 depending on the intended audience/application. (Main significant differences from 2.3->2.4 are decorator syntax, generator expressions, and library module bug fixes/minor api changes.) A lot of third-party modules require 2.4, so this may also be a factor. Also OS X maybe relevant: 10.3 (Panther): 2.3 10.4 (Tiger): 2.3 10.5 (Leopard): 2.5 Tim From ryan at uanywhere.com.au Tue Mar 3 04:05:03 2009 From: ryan at uanywhere.com.au (Ryan Verner) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 13:35:03 +1030 Subject: [sapug] Straw poll, of sorts. In-Reply-To: <49AC783C.4030401@handcraftedcomputers.com.au> References: <49AC783C.4030401@handcraftedcomputers.com.au> Message-ID: <61BE02E1-3DDB-46DF-AC02-927CED32FC59@uanywhere.com.au> 2.3 here. Still support some apps on FC3 boxes, unfortunately! On 03/03/2009, at 10:52 AM, Daryl Tester wrote: > I'm just about to start writing myself a C extension module, and as I > was pondering how far to make it backward compatible the following > thought sprung to mind. What's the oldest and newest version of > Python you currently write code for [1]? > > I still have a fairly sizeable system that's running on Python 1.5.2 > (it's slooowly being migrated across on a break/fix basis, which is > the > only time the customer pays, but alas it rarely breaks), but most of > the > stuff I do these days is based around 2.5.x (various flavours of .2 to > .4) as py2exe doesn't cope well with 2.6. I've done little under 2.6 > (certainly nothing that would specifically use any of its features), > and > apart from library changes (e.g. MIMEWriter's severe makeover) I > tend to > code in a subset of Python that will allow me to run on a fairly wide > range of versions (although not as far back as 1.5.2, I have to > remember > how to convert between "idioms" like list comprehensions). > > So what's your version range? > > > 1 - this won't effect my decision, it's just something I'm idly > curious about. However, I probably won't code the extension as > a type for that reason as I know the extension types have changed > between major versions. > > -- > Regards, > Daryl Tester > > "Must have scripting experience; Pearl, Shell, Python, VBScript, Born, > Corn, Awk, Sed" -- Unix job advertisement. > -- > sapug mailing list > sapug at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/sapug > From kim.hawtin at adelaide.edu.au Wed Mar 4 02:25:18 2009 From: kim.hawtin at adelaide.edu.au (Kim Hawtin) Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:55:18 +1030 Subject: [sapug] Straw poll, of sorts. In-Reply-To: <49AC783C.4030401@handcraftedcomputers.com.au> References: <49AC783C.4030401@handcraftedcomputers.com.au> Message-ID: <49ADD87E.1080401@adelaide.edu.au> Daryl Tester wrote: > I'm just about to start writing myself a C extension module, and as I > was pondering how far to make it backward compatible the following > thought sprung to mind. What's the oldest and newest version of > Python you currently write code for [1]? > > I still have a fairly sizeable system that's running on Python 1.5.2 > (it's slooowly being migrated across on a break/fix basis, which is the > only time the customer pays, but alas it rarely breaks), but most of the > stuff I do these days is based around 2.5.x (various flavours of .2 to > .4) as py2exe doesn't cope well with 2.6. I've done little under 2.6 > (certainly nothing that would specifically use any of its features), and > apart from library changes (e.g. MIMEWriter's severe makeover) I tend to > code in a subset of Python that will allow me to run on a fairly wide > range of versions (although not as far back as 1.5.2, I have to remember > how to convert between "idioms" like list comprehensions). > > So what's your version range? > > 1 - this won't effect my decision, it's just something I'm idly > curious about. However, I probably won't code the extension as > a type for that reason as I know the extension types have changed > between major versions. Python 2.5.1 (r251:54863, Jul 31 2008, 23:17:40) [GCC 4.1.3 20070929 (prerelease) (Ubuntu 4.1.2-16ubuntu2)] on linux2 Python 2.4.3 (#1, Jan 14 2008, 18:31:21) [GCC 4.1.2 20070626 (Red Hat 4.1.2-14)] on linux2 Python 2.3.5 (#2, Oct 16 2006, 19:19:48) [GCC 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-13)] on linux2 cheers, Kim -- Operating Systems, Services and Operations Information Technology Services, The University of Adelaide kim.hawtin at adelaide.edu.au