5 ms·

I like this visualization of Python's release cycle: https://python-release-cycle.glitch.me/ https://python-release-cycle.glitch.me/

• kevindong 6y ago
  Python 3.0 is surprisingly short (~7 months) and Python 2.7 is impressively long (~9.5 years).
  • Izkata 6y ago
    I have no experience of this myself, but I remember people saying that 3.0 had at least one major-yet-unnecessary incompatibility with 2.7, and that converting 2.7 to 3.2 or 3.3 was significantly easier than 2.7 to 3.0 (and so that could explain the speed it was dropped - the fix may have been 3.1 and not 3.2 like I have in my head)
    • pansa2 6y ago
      Perhaps they were talking about the explicit `u` prefix for Unicode strings? This was present in 2.7 but missing from 3.x until 3.3 [0]. [0] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0414/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0414/
  • BeetleB 6y ago
    > Python 2.7 is impressively long (~9.5 years). It's not impressively long, it is artificially long. It was decided there would be no 2.8, so they kept 2.7 up for compatibility reasons for a long time to make it easier for people to transition.
• mixmastamyk 6y ago
  Could use just a bit more detail on the X axis.
  • di 6y ago
    Hi! Author here. If you hover over the individual bars, it will give you more detail like start/end month and total lifespan.
    • mixmastamyk 6y ago
      Oh I see. I was looking at it on mobile yesterday and the dates were 2000, 2010, 2020, etc. Even rotated landscape. On desktop it expands to the full width and I get every year. Something to take note of perhaps.