On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Mark H Harris <harrismh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> we don't want folks to be driven away from Cpython as a language, and we >> don't want them to fork the Cpython interpreter, so we'll take a very casual >> and methodically conservative approach to nudging people towards a Cpython3 >> migration route > > If it's too much work to make the changes to move something from > Python 2.7 to Python 3.3, it's *definitely* too much work to rewrite > it in a different language. There would have to be some strong other > reason for shifting, especially since there's a 2to3 but not a > PytoRuby.
For whatever the current project is, yes -- if there's no route to Python 3 then they will simply be stuck on Python 2.7 indefinitely. However, if Python is perceived as a language that doesn't provide backward compatibility and long-term maintainability via some migration path, then users will be less likely to pick Python for their *next* project. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
