On 1/12/2010 5:04 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > But you won't *have* fewer differences. Just because your code runs > on 2.8 doesn't mean it will stop running on 2.3 (if you have a need > for that). This doesn't get you any closer - you can't use any of > the 2.8 features as long as you have to support older versions of > Python. > >> Fundamentally the more 2.x can converge on 3.x, the easier it will be >> for users to make the leap, because it will be a smaller leap. > > No, it won't. It might be if people move to 2.8 *and* drop 2.5, but they > likely won't. > >> The >> longer the 2.x series lives, the more these newer 2.x versions like 2.7 >> and maybe even 2.8 will be available on common platforms for people to >> depend upon as minimum versions, which means that as time goes by they >> can depend on a version that's closer to 3.x. > > No, that's incorrect. Suppose 2.7 is the last 2.x release, to be > released in 2010. Then, in 2015, it may be that everybody has migrated > to 2.7, which then is a common platform. > > If you release 2.8 in 2012, then, in 2015, people will be split between > 2.7 and 2.8, and so there won't be a common platform before 2017. Just like people today may need to work with both 2.5 and 2.6, or privately backport 2.6 bugfixes to 2.5. > So stopping 2.x development *earlier* will also give us a common > platform earlier. With years of bug fixes and hence high quality.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4