the Gravity of Python 2

[Mark Lawrence]

On 08/01/2014 13:01, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> That incremental upgrade path is Python 2.7.
>
> Remember, when Python 3 first came out, the current version of Python was
> 2.5. 2.6 came out roughly simultaneously with Python 3. So the expected
> upgrade path is:
>
>
> "Bleeding edge" adaptors:
> 2.5 -> 3.0
>
> Early adaptors:
> 2.5 -> 2.6 -> 3.1 or 3.2
>
> Slower adaptors:
> 2.5 -> 2.6 -> 2.7 -> 3.3 or 3.4
>
> Late adaptors:
> 2.5 -> 2.6 -> 2.7 -> 3.5 (expected to be about 18-24 months)
>
> Laggards who wait until support for 2.7 is dropped:
> 2.5 -> 2.6 -> 2.7 -> 3.6 or 3.7
>
> Adding 2.8 doesn't help. It just gives people another excuse to delay
> migrating. Then, in another two or three years, they'll demand 2.9, and put
> it off again. Then they'll insist that 15 years wasn't long enough to
> migrate their code, and demand 2.10.
>
> I have no objection to people delaying migrating. There were lots of risks
> and difficulties in migrating to 3.1 or 3.2, there are fewer risks and
> difficulties in migrating to 3.3 and 3.4, and there will be even fewer by
> the time 3.5 and 3.6 come out. People should migrate when they are
> comfortable. They may even decide to stick to 2.7 for as long as they can
> find a computer capable of running it, security updates or no security
> updates. That's all fine.
>
> What's not fine though is people holding the rest of us back with their
> negativity and FUD that Python 3 is a mistake.
>
>

Big +1 from me to all the above.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask 
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence