On Nov 2, 2009, at 6:24 PM, ssteinerX at gmail.com wrote: > +1 on 2.7 being the last of the 2.x series. Enough already! -1. (not that it matters) > I, personally, haven't even written my first line of 3.x code, nor > have I had any good reason to. Me neither. > If I saw the actual end of the line at 2.7, I would actually start > looking for 3.x versions of my favorite tools and would be much more > inclined to help push them along ASAP. I'd probably keep using 2.7 to be able to keep using those tools, instead. > Right now, so much that I use on a daily basis doesn't even have a > 3.x roadmap, much less any sort of working implementation, that I > don't see switching to 3.x ever unless the 2.x line ends, and soon! I don't see switching to 3.x anytime soon either. But what's the rush? 2.x seems to be a fine edition of Python, why not let it keep going to 2.8 and beyond? Then you wouldn't have to switch to 3.x at all, and that'd save you a ton of work. (and save all the people you will have to convince to make a 3.x roadmap and do the port a ton of work too!) It really sounds like you're saying that switching to 3.x isn't worth the cost to you, but you want to force people (including yourself) to do so anyways, because ...? James
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