Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.stack.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
To: python-list@python.org
From: Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: the Gravity of Python 2
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 14:15:45 +0000
References: <laf00q$10k$1@ger.gmane.org> <mailman.5098.1389053970.18130.python-list@python.org> <78d91$52cbf8e9$541826b9$29485@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl> <4b702$52cc262e$541826b9$22985@cache80.multikabel.net> <4cbf$52cc2e82$541826b9$11761@cache70.multikabel.net> <mailman.5141.1389114029.18130.python-list@python.org> <686$52cd4640$541826b9$21896@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
In-Reply-To: <686$52cd4640$541826b9$21896@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.5169.1389190570.18130.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 54
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:63478

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