long-term release schedule?

[Peter Hansen]

Ray Smith wrote:
> 
> Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> wrote in message news:<3EE874F2.4042B9E4 at engcorp.com>...
> > Ray Smith wrote:
> 
> > > I'm looking at introducing Python into a corporate environment and the
> > > above statement seems at least a little worrying (the first time I thought
> > > about it).
> >
> > Why would it be worrying in a corporate environment?  Are you
> > worried that the donated time of the developers will stop
> > being provided freely to your company?
> 
> The worrying aspect is that Python (or any development tool a company uses)
> becomes unsupported and "no one" is around (paid or unpaid) to continue
> development.

But *why* would a company need to have Python development continue?
Is this hypothetical company for some reason depending on _future_
enhancements to the language?  What damage would result to that 
company or its products or tools based on Python if Python development
were to freeze at the current level?

> You seem to have this idea I'm after a free lunch?
> I didn't think my question involved how do I get free development tools and
> support???

I guess it depends on the answer to the first question. ;-)  My company,
which uses Python, would survive and prosper just as well if Python
development stopped right now, and I'm trying to understand a situation
in which a company would suffer if that happened.  Maybe a "Python company"
which depended on growth in the Python community in order to grow
its market...  is that what you're asking about?

> The point I guess is that when you hear comments something like
> 
> """Guido would need to find commercial backing to continue development on a
> 'Python 3.0' version"""
> 
> you think about the long term future and improvements to Python.

Fair enough.  I'm very confident the future of Python would continue to
be glowing, even in that unhappy event.  Protecting against such an
occurrence is probably part of the idea behind the PSF, I suppose,
and the PBF also.

> The bottom line is I'm sick to death of priopriety companies changing the
> playing field every 5 years and needing to rework large portions of code.
> Mostly these products we use (from the company everyone loves to hate) is
> poorly designed, unstable and difficult to use.

Hear hear!  That's certainly a large part of the reasoning behind _our_
choice of Python as the mainstay of our development.

> Open Source is still considered a risky choose by most managers and I have to
> be very careful how I attempt to introduce it here.  

"Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"?  :-)  Consider that "risk" for
most people, let alone managers, equates to "change", and you'll understand
why they are fearful.  I agree you need to tread carefully on political
ground in going this route.  I was fortunate to be in a position where
there was very little questioning of my choices (now _that's_ risky! :-)
and I didn't have to worry as much about that aspect.

> I have successfully
> introudused a couple of small open source tools, but I'm basically going for
> the big one now and planning to use Python for a large long term project
> (I've just got to convince management now ... which won't be easy).

Feel free to contact me by mail if you have specific questions I might
be able to answer about this sort of thing.  We adopted Python exclusively
about three years ago and I have a variety of experiences with its 
applicability in a corporate environment (non IT though... but R&D).

-Peter