To down-voters: this is a valid question, and something I cut from the original post (trying to keep to meta-discussion). I'm hitting one related issue right n

To down-voters: this is a valid question, and something I cut from the original post (trying to keep to meta-discussion). I'm hitting one related issue right now at work: we want to switch to Jython to take advantage some JVM features, but need to weigh the risk that it might never move past Python 2.5 syntax [1]. That's not a deal-breaker, but I'm an enormous fan of where Python syntax has gone since then, so it pains me especially. With a self-hosting syntax interpreter, even a minimally maintained project like Jython could keep up with most changes. Another less-practical issue is that of syntax evolution: like Apple, Python has taken the route of benevolent-overlord to make design decisions. Thanks to the good taste of Steve and GvR, I think that's worked out really well. But neither is perfect, and especially in the case of programming language design, I'd wager the end product could benefit from having a market system of minor syntax features competing in user-space, not just in Guido's head. Just as "from __future__ import print_function" changes the syntax of a file, so could "from __macros__ import anaphoric_if". 1. The Jython project lead is no longer working on it full-time: http://fwierzbicki.blogspot.com/2010/02/my-new-job-at-sauce-labs.html http://fwierzbicki.blogspot.com/2010/02/my-new-job-at-sauce-...