On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull email@example.com wrote:
Steven D'Aprano writes:
To me, that's a step backwards.
I agree, but this kind of "step backwards" is a "consenting adults" issue. So let's avoid such pejorative terminology, and stick to the line that a lot of resources would be required to create such a Python 2.8, and there's little benefit to be had.
No, I'm with Steven on this. (Steven with a v, as opposed to Stephen with a ph. It's like talking to the detectives in Tintin.) Even if it cost no resources at all - if Python 2.8 already existed, exactly as described - it would be a third Python to aim for (as well as 2.7 and 3.x). It's already hard enough to span lots of Python versions; adding another that's deliberately and consciously incompatible with both the primary branches would be a major problem. It may be that code that runs on 2.7 and 3.4 will also automatically run on 2.8 (which seems possible, but far from certain), but if not, 2.8 would cause problems for everyone who tries to write code for every supported version. For anything other than in-house scripts where one person/team controls both the script and the interpreter it runs on, compatibility with multiple versions will be critical; and adding something incompatible with both current versions is an XKCD 927 situation . No matter how cheap or expensive it is to do, that's a problem *in itself*, so the proposal has to justify itself enough to overcome that.