Raymond Hettinger wrote: > From: "A.M. Kuchling" <amk at amk.ca> >> Perhaps the statement could say something like "we do not expect >> most Python packages will be ported to the 3.x series until around the >> time 3.1 is released in X months." (where X=12? 6?) > > I would leave out any discussion of 3.1. Its content and release date > have nothing to do with when third party modules get updated. > > Also, we don't know the timing of the third-party updates. > Some may never get converted. Some may convert quickly > and easily. Someone (perhaps me) may organize a series of > funded sprints to get many of the major packages converted. > > It would be better to simply say that at the present time, > most important third-party modules do not yet support 3.0. > > FWIW, my father is Python newbie and I'm pointing him > to 3.0 because it will be easier to learn than 2.6's hodgepodge > of new and old features. The 3.0 environment is much cleaner. I agree with all 4 points, especially the last. I think newcomers should be informed of the +/- of different versions and then choose for themselves. For full battery availability, 2.5 is it and will be for some months. For a fresh start without need of extras, 3.0 wins in my experience so far. tjr
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4