myths about python 3

[exarkun at twistedmatrix.com]

On 10:07 pm, pavlovevidence at gmail.com wrote:
>On Jan 27, 12:56 pm, John Nagle <na... at animats.com> wrote:
>>Arguably, Python 3 has been rejected by the market.
>
>No it's not fathomably arguable, because there's no reasonable way
>that Python 3 could have fully replaced Python 2 so quickly.
>
>At best, you could reasonably argue there hasn't been enough time to
>tell.
>> Instead, there's
>>now Python 2.6, Python 2.7, and Python 2.8.
>
>It was always the plan to continue developing Python 2.x alongside
>Python 3.x during the transition period.
>
>Last I heard, don't remember where, the plan was for Python 2.7 to be
>the last version in the Python 2 line.  If that's true, Python 3
>acceptance is further along at this point than anticipated, since they
>originally thought they might have to go up to 2.9.

This assumes that the decision to stop making new 2.x releases is based 
on Python 3 adoption, rather than on something else.  As far as I can 
tell, it's based on the personal desire of many of the core developers 
to stop bothering with 2.x.  In other words, it's more a gauge of 
adoption of Python 3 amongst Python core developers.

Jean-Paul