The short version is this: Python-Dev is working on the release we hope people are using <i>in a few years</i>, not the one we hope you use in a <i>a few months</i>.<p>Python 2.7 will live for a <i>long time</i> (years) as a stable, bug-fixed release.<p>There are no compelling features to "force" the existence of a 2.8 release, which would overly stress already over-allocated resources.
Does anyone know if there are enough compatible libraries out there to make using Python 3 in production viable yet? Last time I looked into it (about 6 months ago), it was a non-starter for me.
A very clear post on the future of the Python language that should probably be sung from mountain-tops in addition to being said in this blog post. Or at the very least, stated on every download page of the latest 2.x releases on python.org.<p>I still wonder about the rate of 3.x adoption will be, though. My university (RPI) still had Python 2.4 on all the CS machines last year, which made some minor things (I wish I could remember one!) a bit frustrating.
Most (only) interesting thing mentioned was 3to2 <a href="http://www.startcodon.com/wordpress/?p=373" rel="nofollow">http://www.startcodon.com/wordpress/?p=373</a>
What the dev doesn't understand is that from the users' point of view, 2.7 doesn't even exist yet, much less 3.2 Virtually everyone not administering their own machine is using 2.4 or 2.5
I'm missing the point. What's the deal with language designers wanting to have just one version of a language? Why can you mix and match Python and C while still not being able to mix and match Python 2 and Python 3? Just stop improving and adding features to the Python 2 side.<p>Of course people want backward compatibility: don't you know that developing software is hard work? Even old and stale libraries can be useful: why should we discard them?