On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote: >> The clarification I need is will this in any way influence when >> modules are removed. If they stay in for the life of a major version >> then I want it made clear that bug fixes for the code take lower >> priority over all other code in the standard library. > > I think we should be as cautious as ever with removing modules. We've > had our chance for clean-up without abandon with Py3k; now we should > stick with our commitment to backwards compatibility. In fact, we > should probably be *more* conservative than we already were given that > the amount of code written in Python is always increasing and hence > the cumulative pain caused by incompatible changes will increase too. > > I'm fine with silent deprecations or requiring a flag to turn on > deprecation warnings (like Java does). > > We're not yet at the point where C is, but who wouldn't be next to C > on the TIOBE index? :-) I'd take being next to lisp if it meant that we didn't have to become any more like C ;). And speaking of TIOBE, my impression- and apparently yours- was that Python was on its way up, but TIOBE lists us as being down from a little over a year ago. Anybody know anything about their methodology? Geremy Condra
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