[Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

James Y Knight writes:
 > 
 > On Nov 8, 2010, at 6:08 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
 > 
 > > 2010/11/8 James Y Knight <foom at fuhm.net>:
 > >> On Nov 8, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
 > >>> So it can be done, but the question is "Why?"
 > >> 
 > >> To keep the batteries included?
 > > 
 > > But they'll only be included in > 2.7, which won't be used much, [...]
 > 
 > If there was going to be an official python.org sanctioned Python
 > 2.8 release, I'm not at all sure that'd be the case. Since there
 > isn't going to be one, then yes, that's probably true.

Which pretty much demonstrates that the argument for a sanctioned 2.8
is weak, and ditto for adding features to 2.7.

Python 2.7 is a great language; existing projects which need to go
beyond that need to port to a different language.  The OP is already
doing that IIUC: Stackless is a pretty faithful implementation of
Python (in several versions of the language, too!), but not quite
100%, right?  OTOH, how many derivatives has C spawned?  Or Pascal,
FORTRAN, LISP?  ML?  And people continue to find that variety
*constraining*, and invent new languages!

python-dev's decision to offer that different language as Python 3,
where *almost all* of your skills will upgrade transparently (even
though unfortunately a lot of code won't, at least not today), is
probably a great boon to developers *in* Python.  Time will tell.