2.1 vs. 2.2

[Aahz]

In article <3cb8a755$0$12714$9b622d9e at news.freenet.de>,
Jens Baader <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
>
>I'm downloading Python 2.2.1 right now and I wonder
>why you still produce bugfix releases for the old 2.1 development line.
>It seems that Python 2.2 is somewhat broken. If not what's the
>reason that keeps the people from upgrading to 2.2?

You've already received a couple of good answers; here's another: some
people need to develop for multiple versions of Python.  While it's
certainly possible (and not all that difficult, actually) to support
releases from 1.5.2 through 2.2.1, each additional release does take
more effort, so I can understand why someone might choose to stick with
1.5.2 through 2.1.3.

>Another question: When will we see an official ISO/ANSI standard
>for Python? I dislike working with nonstandardized languages.  The
>fact that radical language changes are still made (the type/class
>unification) seem to suggest that Python is still not mature enough for
>a real standard. Or maybe Python and the other "newschool" languages
>(like Ruby, Java) are not meant to by standardized? Don't know but I
>really would like to. Are there any plans to get Python "stable" or
>will the language continue to change with each major release of the
>interpreter?

Never.  There's a reason Guido is called Benevolent Dictator For Life:
most of us recognize that there's no way a committee of any sort could
substitute for Guido's design intuition and expertise.
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

What if there were no rhetorical questions?