the Gravity of Python 2

[Mark Lawrence]

On 08/01/2014 12:36, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> 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
>

My understanding is that 95% of core developers won't work on 2.8, 
partly I suspect because of the massive overhead they've already had to 
do supporting 2 and 3 in parellel.  Assuming that I'm correct, who is 
going to do the work involved, you Martijn?

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

Mark Lawrence