On 2009-04-07 18:19, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:25 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
On 2009-04-06 15:21, Jesse Noller wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:33 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
On 2009-04-02 17:32, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I propose the following PEP for inclusion to Python 3.1. Thanks for picking this up.
I'd like to extend the proposal to Python 2.7 and later.
-1 to adding it to the 2.x series. There was much discussion around adding features to 2.x *and* 3.0, and the consensus seemed to *not* add new features to 2.x and use those new features as carrots to help lead people into 3.0. I must have missed that discussion :-)
Where's the PEP pinning this down ?
The Python 2.x user base is huge and the number of installed applications even larger.
Cutting these users and application developers off of important new features added to Python 3 is only going to work as "carrot" for those developers who:
* have enough resources (time, money, manpower) to port their existing application to Python 3
* can persuade their users to switch to Python 3
* don't rely much on 3rd party libraries (the bread and butter of Python applications)
Realistically, such a porting effort is not likely going to happen for any decent sized application, except perhaps a few open source ones.
Such a policy would then translate to a dead end for Python 2.x based applications.
Think of the advantages though! Python 2 will finally become *stable*. The group of users you are talking to are usually balking at the thought of upgrading from 2.x to 2.(x+1) just as much as they might balk at the thought of Py3k. We're finally giving them what they really want.
Python 2.x is stable - much more than 3.x is today. However, stable does not mean zero development, which a "No new features in Python 2.x" policy would translate to. If there are core developers that care about 2.x, then it should be possible for them to add the necessary patches to future 2.x releases.
Regarding calling this a dead end, we're committed to supporting 2.x for at least five years. If that's not enough, well, it's open source, so there's no reason why some group of rogue 2.x fans can't maintain it indefinitely after that.
Sure, but why can't this be done within the existing Python developer community ? -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Apr 14 2009)
Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/
2009-03-19: Released mxODBC.Connect 1.0.1 http://python.egenix.com/ ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/