On 1/10/2010 8:44 PM, Neil Schemenauer wrote: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:09:08PM -0800, Brett Cannon wrote: >> I don't think ending the 2.x series at 2.7 makes it look bad >> compared to 3.2; it's simply the end of a development line like >> any other software project. I suspect 2.7 will have a protracted >> bugfix window because so much code runs on 2.x exclusively at the >> moment. > > I would guess over 99% of all Python code written doesn't run on > Python 3. If the removal of old features had been done in the 2.x series, as once planned (Guido originally proposed removing the old meaning of int / int in 2.5) the same more or less would be true of 2.7. It is past time for other old and now duplicated features to be removed also. Given that, I think it is premature to close the door on > new major versions of Python 2.x. Also, we as a project should be > careful not to present the image that Python 2.x will not be > supported in the future. > >> If there really is an outcry on this we can re-visit the issue, >> but as of right now we need to move forward at some point and 2.7 >> seems like that good point. > > I think that's bad PR. If I had a successful product, I would not > announce its end of life just to see how many customers scream and > then decide if I should devote more resources to continue > maintaining it. Python is not being ended, but upgraded (with bloating duplications removed). Think of 3.1 as 2.8 with a new name. tjr
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