4 ms·

It's really annoying to see people still recommending Python 2.7 for new users/projects. If security updates really do stop in 2020, then we have 3.5 years unti

It's really annoying to see people still recommending Python 2.7 for new users/projects. If security updates really do stop in 2020, then we have 3.5 years until any deployed software written in Python 2.7 is useless, as it will be insecure.

emptybits 10y ago
The doc does say this: "If you’re choosing a Python interpreter to use, and aren’t opinionated, then I recommend you use the newest Python 3.x, since every version brings new and improved standard library modules, security and bug fixes. Progress is progress."
- RubyPinch 10y ago
  Well that sounds like the kind of thing that should be recommended by default then its "grr, use python 2, unless, ugh, if you want to do what everyone recommends the average person do, use python 3 I suppose" which is just silly
cgriswald 10y ago
I'm not running an OS written in Python. I'm processing some data. I control the data and I'm doing it all locally. Security is very low on my list of concerns. And I'm using libraries that aren't and may never be updated to Python 3. Ideally they would be. If I get ambitious maybe I'll even be the one to do it. For other things, I use Python 3. The article is talking to me. To paraphrase: Use Python 3 unless you have a good reason to use Python 2. That advice is solid and not really a recommendation of Python 2.
- vegabook 10y ago
  I have exactly the same situation. But I have to admit to a slight preference for using Python 2 because it just feels more "fluid" somehow. Less demanding. Less "serious". And just as effective (I don't need async). However I have now submitted to the baying hounds of doom and moved to 3 on most stuff for the reasons of "having a future", security, etc. Was pushed. Didn't jump. One thing I will give 3 though is the stupidly simple thing that 3/2 = 1.5. Quite often I have to fire up python for a quick and dirty calc and it's much better not to have to remember the integer division quirk.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

emptybits 10y ago

The doc does say this: "If you’re choosing a Python interpreter to use, and aren’t opinionated, then I recommend you use the newest Python 3.x, since every version brings new and improved standard library modules, security and bug fixes. Progress is progress."

RubyPinch 10y ago
Well that sounds like the kind of thing that should be recommended by default then its "grr, use python 2, unless, ugh, if you want to do what everyone recommends the average person do, use python 3 I suppose" which is just silly

cgriswald 10y ago

I'm not running an OS written in Python. I'm processing some data. I control the data and I'm doing it all locally. Security is very low on my list of concerns. And I'm using libraries that aren't and may never be updated to Python 3. Ideally they would be. If I get ambitious maybe I'll even be the one to do it. For other things, I use Python 3. The article is talking to me. To paraphrase: Use Python 3 unless you have a good reason to use Python 2. That advice is solid and not really a recommendation of Python 2.

vegabook 10y ago
I have exactly the same situation. But I have to admit to a slight preference for using Python 2 because it just feels more "fluid" somehow. Less demanding. Less "serious". And just as effective (I don't need async). However I have now submitted to the baying hounds of doom and moved to 3 on most stuff for the reasons of "having a future", security, etc. Was pushed. Didn't jump. One thing I will give 3 though is the stupidly simple thing that 3/2 = 1.5. Quite often I have to fire up python for a quick and dirty calc and it's much better not to have to remember the integer division quirk.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]