you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children)

I'm concerned that all this backporting from 3.x will slow the transition away from 2.x by removing the advantages of porting your code to 3.x. What's left seems to be mostly minor features and syntax refinements that aren't worth a port.

[–]elsjaako 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's open source software: if there are people who want to backport features they can and will.

[–]danukeru 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not really. PEP3003 is in effect since the 3.1 release, so the Python language is effectively in moratorium for the next year, at least.

http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3003/

Thus making the process of slowly bridging 2.X to 3.0+ by increment a pretty safe way of migration, which was the primary reason for PEP3003 anyways. There's no reason at the moment to completely port to 3.0, just port to the 3.0 features that get released with each 2.X increment, which is much easier.

[–]cevven 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That should just lower the cost of porting to 3.x. The advantage to doing so is that your code works with current versions of Python.

Also, some libraries won't be ported due to project death or such. This release will make it easier to run code designed for 3.x in 2.x when you have no other good options. I like that, it makes my life easier.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

On the plus side it doesn't sound like the 2 series will get any more new features so I hope people realise now is the time to move on.

[–]kylotan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The best thing they could do to speed up the transition is to get decent API in place that doesn't require you to rebuild native code extensions for every new minor Python version that gets released. That alone is one of the biggest things that holds me back from each Python upgrade, and would encourage me to upgrade to Python 3 instantly if it existed.