Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.mixmin.net!rt.uk.eu.org!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed2a.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <liglsq$djb$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <liglsq$djb$1@ger.gmane.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:20:01 +1000
Subject: Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8
From: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Cc: "python-list@python.org" <python-list@python.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.9249.1397481610.18130.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 22
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:70218

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> http://blog.startifact.com/posts/the-call-of-python-28.html so in response
> to the last line, who *IS* going to do all of the required work?

Only someone for whom it's less work to build Python 2.8 than it is to
port their code to Python 3. In other words, some organization with a
megantic (that's one step below gigantic, you know [1]) Python
codebase, and some (but not heaps of) resources to put into it.
Personally, I don't see it happening; very little of the code required
will be backportable from Python 3 (in contrast to PEP 466 security
patches), so every bit of that work will be for the 2.x line only; and
any features added in 2.8 can't be used until you're prepared to drop
2.7 support. That means a fair amount of work *and* you have to drop
2.7 support. If you're going to do that, why not just port your code
to 3.x and be done with it? Who has the resources to put hours and
hours of dev time into a 2.8?

ChrisA

[1] Megantic is only +3/+3, but gigantic is 8/8. Look! :)
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=370794
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=195627