the Gravity of Python 2

[Martijn Faassen]

On 01/08/2014 01:46 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Martijn Faassen <faassen at startifact.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Yep, but suppose it were simply that the future module is blessed as
> the official, simple, incremental upgrade path. That doesn't violate
> PEP 404, it allows the future module to continue to be expanded
> without worrying about the PSF's schedules (more stuff might be added
> to it in response to Python 3.5, but this is all in the hands of
> future's maintainer), and it should be relatively simple to produce an
> installer that goes and grabs it.

That would be better than nothing, but would break the: "upgrade path 
should be totally obvious" guideline. Also the core developers are 
generally not in the habit of blessing external projects except by 
taking them into the stdlib, so that'd be a first.

> As Mark Rosewater is fond of saying, restrictions breed creativity.
> Can the porting community take the PEP 404 restriction and be creative
> within it? I suspect it'll go a long way.

How many actively maintained applications on Python 2.7 are being 
ported? Do we know? If not many, is this a problem? As problems also 
breed creativity.

Regards,

Martijn