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

[PD Dr. Markus Piotrowski]

Am 04.10.2015 um 20:35 schrieb Tiago Rodrigues Antao:
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 20:10:29 +0200
> Markus Piotrowski <Markus.Piotrowski at ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
>
>> Actually, it's not our job to nudge people towards Python 3, our
>> recommendations should be given with regard to Biopython stability.
>
> It is our job, if we decide, as a community, that we prefer to do this.
> There is no reason at all to be "neutral" on this. Actually if we are
> "neutral" then we really should support Python 1 maybe? And Python 2.1,
> 2.2 and 2.3. We have never been "neutral" in the past with 2.x
> deprecations.
You miss the point. I have no problems dropping support for Python 2 at 
all (I would support immediately dropping support for Python 2.6), for 
the sake of Biopython *development*.
However, actually Biopython runs fine on 2.7 and probably it runs better 
on 2.7 than on 3.5. As Peter has said, we cannot guarantee 100% 
compatibility with Python 3. If we *recommend* using Python 3.5, we make 
an implicit statement that Biopython runs probably worse on Python 2.6/2.7.
That's my point. And possibly an over-valuation of the word 'recommend'. 
('Oh, your sequencing failed? Haven't you prepared the sample following 
our recommendations?'). ;-)

Markus