On 6/27/10 7:55 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
Terry Reedy<tjre...@udel.edu> writes:
Python3 is about finishing transitions. The last stage in a transition
that replaces something old with something new is to remove the old,..
Main problem is that by the time Python3 has stopped being disruptive,
Python4 will be underway. Python3 is incompatible enough with Python2
to cause hassle and headaches, but not incompatible enough for the
benefits to be more than slight. So making more radical changes will
require undergong the transition and disruption twice. I think it would
have been better to just do it once.
There's no reason to assume Python 4 will be anything like Python 3 was
that I'm aware of. In fact, I'd bet large bunches of money that it will
be backwards compatible and evolutionary: a major release doesn't -have-
to be extremely disruptive.
Considering a couple people on Py-dev seemed (IIRC!) to object to the
entire idea of a 2.10 from my lurking on the principle that its invalid
(even if a lot of software don't treat version numbers as decimals, but
just separate fields), it wouldn't surprise me that as we continue along
with set releases of Python, 3.9 will roll around and 4.0 will come
next, without it being some massive shift again. Not that it might not
bring fun and interesting new mind-reading capabilities, but I'm not
sure I see that there needs to be another Major Event. At least, not so
soon as 4.0.
--
... Stephen Hansen
... Also: Ixokai
... Mail: me+list/python (AT) ixokai (DOT) io
... Blog: http://meh.ixokai.io/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
