Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > There is, of course, the awkward issue of how/when to transition to > Python 3.x, which is *not* backwards compatible with Python 2.x. I > expect that when the time comes there will be volunteers (myself > included) willing to help adapt Python scripts to the new version, but > the problem shouldn't be minimized. 2to3 actually does a pretty good job. It doesn't reduce the transition cost to zero, but I find it does reduce that cost to an easily manageable level even on quite large codebases. > It would be insane to rewrite performance-critical C code in any > scripting language, but there is a huge penumbra of code that is not > performance critical and that mutates rapidly. Indeed. In the git architecture there is a pretty clear dividing line - to a first approximation, plumbing should remain C but porcelain should probably not. (Not that I am advocating forcing such a move - but it would be good to allow it to happen.) The 80-20 rule (80% of the execution time is spent in 20% of the code) helps us here. The *other* 80% of the code can move to a scripting language with no significant performance loss. To find out what needs to stay in C, run a profiler! -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html