Hi there, On 01/07/2014 06:00 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
I'm still not sure how Python 2.8 needs to differ from 2.7. Maybe the touted upgrade path is simply a Python 2.7 installer plus a few handy libraries/modules that will now be preinstalled? These modules look great (I can't say, as I don't have a huge Py2 codebase to judge based on), and they presumably work on the existing Pythons.
Well, in the original article I argue that it may be risky for the Python community to leave the large 2.7 projects behind because they tend to be the ones that pay us in the end.
I also argue that for those projects to move anywhere, they need a clear, blessed, official, as simple as possible, incremental upgrade path. That's why I argue for a Python 2.8.
Pointing out the 'future' module is existence proof that further incremental steps could be taken on top of what Python 2.7 already does.
I may be that these points are wrong or should be weighed differently. It's possible that:
* the risk of losing existing big 2.x projects is low, they'll port anyway, the money will keep flowing into our community, they won't look at other languages, etc.
* these big 2.x projects are going to all find the 'future' module themselves and use it as incremental upgrade path, so there's no need for a new blessed Python 2.x.
* the approach of the 'future' module turns out to be fatally flawed and/or doesn't really help with incremental upgrades after all.
But that's how I reason about it, and how I weigh things. I think the current strategy is risky.
Regards, Martijn -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
