On 08/01/2014 12:36, Martijn Faassen wrote:
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
My understanding is that 95% of core developers won't work on 2.8,
partly I suspect because of the massive overhead they've already had to
do supporting 2 and 3 in parellel. Assuming that I'm correct, who is
going to do the work involved, you Martijn?
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
