RetroSearch Browse

Sat Dec 10 10:09:51 EST 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-December/146937.html

On 10 December 2016 at 13:49, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> wrote:
[...]

> Regardless of the name, it'll be interesting to see whether
> there's demand for such a fork. Without a website, binaries
> to download, documentation, etc. it's still in the very early
> stages.
>

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.

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20161210/a15a651c/attachment-0001.html>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-December/146937.html below:

[Python-Dev] Someons's put a "Python 2.8" on GitHub