|From:||Skip Montanaro <skip-AT-pobox.com>|
|To:||Giampaolo Rodolà <g.rodola-AT-gmail.com>|
|Subject:||Re: The end of 2.7|
|Date:||Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:40:26 -0500|
|Cc:||python-dev Dev <python-dev-AT-python.org>|
> If from the start you use: > - six ... There's the rub. We are not blessed with Guido's time machine where I work. Much of the Python code we run was written long before six was a gleam in anybody's eye. Heck, some of it was probably written before some active members of python-dev graduated from high school. :-) I'm really amazed at how many people seem to have the impression that porting to Python 3 should be no big deal. Please go back and read Guido's post in this thread from yesterday. He identified many barriers to moving between versions. This is not really a Python-specific problem. All large organizations encounter this, and wind up supporting lots of legacy code, long after its original authors are gone. Go to monster.com and search for COBOL or Ada. As I wrote in my previous message, we are only now moving from 2.4 to 2.7. If moving to Python 3 wasn't going to be much more difficult, I think we would have attempted that. 2.7 Seemed like the better step though, especially considering its compatibility with 2.4 and the fact that it has a lot of things backported from Python 3 to ease the eventual transition to Python 3. Skip
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds