[stdlib-sig] Evolving the Standard Library

[Michael Foord]

M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Michael Foord wrote:
>   
>> Backwards compatibility is a *big* problem
>> for any major refactoring though.
>>     
>
> Sigh.
>   

*sigh*

Don't you just love emails that start with a sigh. Anyway, yes. That is 
why I said it was a problem. Good grief.

Michael

> I sometimes get the feeling that people on this list don't
> know Python's history, how it was developed over the past decade
> and what our goals were.
>
> Maintaining as much backwards compatibility as reasonably possible
> has always been a key goal and we've done a pretty good job at
> it (if I may say so).
>
> As Py3k approached, it was deemed ok to break with the past and
> that was accepted by the core developers and the users. However,
> that time has past now and we're running in non-breaking mode
> again.
>
> As we're starting to establish the Py3k branch as new stable
> Python branch, we're not suddenly going to change the goals
> we've established over the years in the Python 2.x branch.
>
> Backwards compatibility is one of the key arguments for using
> Python as a development platform. As such it's not a problem,
> it's a feature of Python.
>
> And while it may not mean much to developers who prefer to run
> bleeding edge code, it does mean a lot to the established
> Python user base.
>
>   


-- 
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/