Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20161210/a15a651c/attachment-0001.html below:
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On 10 December 2016 at 13:49, M.-A. Lemburg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mal@egenix.com" target="_blank">mal@egenix.com</a>></span> wrote:</div><div class="gmail_quote">[...]</div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Regardless of the name, it'll be interesting to see whether<br>
there's demand for such a fork. Without a website, binaries<br>
to download, documentation, etc. it's still in the very early<br>
stages.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>IMHO, whether or not there is demand for this release should be irrelevant. Caving in to Python 2.8 demand is trading off some short term gains (adding some Python 3 features to code bases locked into Python 2), in detriment of a big long-term risk, which is that the Python language permanently forks into two versions: Python 2 and Python 3.  </div><div><br></div><div>Right now we have a solid expectation that eventually Python 2 is going to be legacy and most code bases will convert to Python 3. If we somehow endorse Python 2.8, many developers will be tempted to just stick with Python 2 forever. This would be very very bad for the future of the language as whole.</div><div><br></div></div>
</div></div>
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