On 09.01.14 15:52, Martijn Faassen wrote:
On 08/01/14 23:46, Emile van Sebille wrote:
Ultimately I see this less of a v2 to v3 migration issue than simply
calling a spade a spade -- we've now got v2 and v3 python languages. One
of which we're trying to keep breathing life into. And it doesn't sound
like the dev group is on board with there being two pythons (of their
own making no less!)
Be honest now, how many of us interested in a stackless v2.8 are wanting
to migrate our code base to v3.x? I'd say none -- otherwise those would
be migrating.
I'm interested in it because it might help with incremental porting.
Having new features available would also be nice of course. But those
can be synergistic: if new features taken from Python 3 are adopted,
the polyglot stackless/python 3.x language will become more powerful.
It will be quite different from the polyglot py2/py3 language in the
sense that you *do* get benefits from writing polyglot code, not only
drawbacks.
Thus I think the ability to write more advanced polyglot code is
actually an added attraction of Stackless 2.8 for those interested in
migrating, or at least those maintaining polyglot libraries.
This is a nice wish, but face the size of the user bases:
Python 3 == David (small)
Python 2 == Goliath (huge)
Stackless 2 == Mickey (neglectable)
If you write code that works on David or Goliath, the user base is huge.
If you write code that works on David or Mickey, the user base is small.
Who would like to go from huge to small, just by being dependent on
Stackless?
This makes only sense when either
- your effort has the hope to get merged into Goliath, or
- Stackless gets a reasonable growth above the size of David.
Both are pretty unlikely, unless Stackless becomes a really fantastic
must-have.
I only see value for individuals or companies who move to Mickey, because
it solves their individual migration problem better. They might also
want to write
polyglot code for themselves.
But would *you* ever want to publish a module that supports Python 2
only via Stackless,
shrinking the Python 2 audience to neglectable?
I would not, unless there is a must-have feature that only Stackless solves.
Ok, a feature like "yield from" could put some real attraction, when people
need tulip in a polyglot environment. Is that likely?
cheers -- Chris
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:[email protected]>
Software Consulting : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 121 : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14482 Potsdam : PGP key -> http://pgp.uni-mainz.de
phone +49 173 24 18 776 fax +49 (30) 700143-0023
PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
_______________________________________________
Stackless mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
