the Gravity of Python 2

[Martijn Faassen]

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