Edit: Why the downvote? I'm just fishing for anybody having newer info than what's on the website out of genuine interest and because HN tends to be a place where people would know; it's not meant as a troll.
Basically, it's a developing situation and it's not economical to change that text for every inch things move, but I'd love to hear what's in flight right now in this less formal context.
Nobody ever bothered updating it, not when the relevant WSGI spec came out, and not when Python 3.3 announced the byte str changes that would help.
If even Django and Pyramid can have a 3 roadmap --and even implementation--, surely Flask could too.
Seems like they just dont bother, so they put it in the backburner. Which is mighty fine, its a volunteer project after all, but I find said document misinforming, to say the least.
Until the libraries you need at least support Python 3, it's not worth even starting to move across.
Even in 1.5, Django's Python 3 support will be "experimental". This, quite simply, takes Python 3 off the table for the foreseeable future.
The major Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora) aren't aiming for full Python 3 support until 2014 which. The core Python team themselves aren't expecting Python 3 usage to take off until 2014 either.
In real-world usage, we can't all just drop all the libraries we're using and switch over to another because "it's new".
Can you provide a single solid reason to upgrade to Python 3 beyond "it's new"? In the real world, the advantages of using Python 3 must outweigh the negatives before I can justify upgrading our systems to it. Currently, all I can see is a minimum of 1 year of downtime while I either:
1) Wait for Django 1.5, and deal with all the bugs resulting from the upgrade, or
2) Move our entire code base out of Django into something else, and deal with all the bugs from, effectively, moving to an untested system.
interesting! what don't you like about Pyramid? you're aware it is not a continuation of the Pylons codebase, right?
I would really love to know what IS better in flask, especially since Pyramid oficially supports Py3 and PyPy, and that also seems to be a big thing to me.
The main advantage bottle holds over flask is that it's a single file that you can import, instead of a package. Makes it very portable.
My desire: (1) grab data, (2) render chart / graph, (3) display in browser
Without needs like session management, concurrency, etc., Bottle "sounds" easier, which is mostly based on the 1 file import thing, and why I was looking at Bottle last time I did not get this project rolling.
The GP was referring to bottle.py being one file and one import, not about the ability to have the whole app in one file.
Flask is great, and offers you so much more flexibility, but there's just something about the simplicity of Bottle that draws me back to it whenever I need to make a simple web app.
A virtualenv would certainly be proof against future environment changes, perhaps, but it would probably be more effort than necessary for simple forms.
Three commands. Even less if you use virtualenvwrapper.
Plus, you are insane if you don't use virtualenvs for development anyway.
You'd need to put a generous amount of soda water in that flask.
> Flask [...] was developed with best intentions in mind.
And any bugs I guess is "the unintended consequences of good intentions...". :)
Should clean up my templates a bit! Nice little change.
That said, maybe 1.0 is around the corner. But I have not seen much more indication of that than after 0.7 or 0.8.