On 2014-01-18, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 1/17/2014 10:22 PM, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
The transition to Python 3 is happening but there is still a massive amount of code that needs to be ported.
For application code, why does it need to be ported.
Unless Python 2.x is going to be maintained in perpetuity then code will have to be ported. This point seems obvious to me.
For many application areas, the text problem seems to have been somewhat solved, to the point where people are writing 2&3 code successfully.
Sure you can write code that's compatible with 2&3, that's not the code I'm talking about. I'm talking about the millions (maybe billions) of lines of existing Python code.
I think it too late now.
I disagree. The amount of Python 2 code that exists exceeds the amount of Python 3 by orders of magnitude. That existing codebase either stops evolving and stays Python 2 forever or we do all that's practical to help people move it to a current version of Python.
I believe you left out the int division change.
That should be on the list.
People who cannot move to 3.x because of libraries could not move to 2.8 for the same reason. Over half of the most commonly downloaded libraries already have 3.x versions.
That's a necessary condition but the vast amount of existing Python 2 code has not been ported. Lots of it would be private libraries or applications. You only have to look at the download stats for the Python interpreter to confirm this.
I realize that if there is actual code created, and if it's not under the umbrella of the PSF, it couldn't be called "Python 2.8" due to trademark reasons.
I don't give a shit what it's called. A Python 2 fork is going to happen whether the PSF blesses it or not, I can't believe that's even a point of discussion. People are still maintaining Cobol compilers.