Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #98071 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-02 09:48 +1100 |
| Last post | 2015-11-02 09:48 +1100 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Python 2 vs Python 3 for teaching Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-11-02 09:48 +1100
| From | Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 09:48 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Python 2 vs Python 3 for teaching |
| Message-ID | <mailman.41.1446418133.4463.python-list@python.org> |
<paul.hermeneutic@gmail.com> writes: > This would make an excellent opportunity to develop a curriculum to > teach students how to maintain a 2.x and 3.x code base using 2to3. The advice today reflects the great progress that has been made over many years of migrating projects and organisations to Python 3. Instead of ‘2to3’, the best advice today is: write new code targeting Python 3 directly, and only if necessary back-port to Python 2. > 2.x is not going away as fast as some would like. Likewise, Python 3 as a primary development target is not as difficult as some would fear. Python 2 is unarguably a legacy platform, but it has good support for receiving code carefully targeting both Python 2 and Python 3. So it's best to target Python 3 primarily, and back-port code to Python 2 only as and when needed. -- \ “We jealously reserve the right to be mistaken in our view of | `\ what exists, given that theories often change under pressure | _o__) from further investigation.” —Thomas W. Clark, 2009 | Ben Finney
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web