[Biopython-dev] Updating Biopython requirements wording to recommend Python 3

[Michiel de Hoon]

I think it would help if in this phrase we say why we recommend using Python 3. 
-Michiel 


     On Friday, October 2, 2015 6:11 PM, Peter Cock <p.j.a.cock at googlemail.com> wrote:
   

 On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Michiel de Hoon <mjldehoon at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is there a reason that Biopython should recommend using Python 3
> (e.g. are there any modules that work with Python 3 but not with Python 2)?
> If not, I don't think we should make this recommendation.
> -Michiel

If anything there could be some less well used corners of the code
which were written and work on Python 2, but still need tweaking
for Python 3. Hopefully not, but you never know.

When I wrote "We currently recommend using Python 3.5 ..." I was
thinking of the wider Python ecosystem as a whole and long term.
Python 2 is going away, so for newcomers and new projects we
really should now encourage starting with Python 3.

Did you like Eric's phrasing Michiel?:

"We currently recommend using Python 3.5 from http://www.python.org.
Biopython will also work with earlier Python versions 3.4, 3.3, and the
legacy Python versions 2.7 and 2.6."

We could swap "recommend" with "suggest" to make this less
forceful?

Peter


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.open-bio.org/pipermail/biopython-dev/attachments/20151004/7ce583e6/attachment.html>