3 ms·
IMHO, Jython 3 would be more useful than Python 2.8, but it's your project. We have a project at work and the only reason we need to support 2.7 is because we
by js8 10y ago
IMHO, Jython 3 would be more useful than Python 2.8, but it's your project.
We have a project at work and the only reason we need to support 2.7 is because we want to run under Jython.
Anyway, I would like to hear other people's use cases for Python 2.7.
- kensai 10y agoIsn't Jython (generally) dead? The main site seems to be stuck in 2015.
- js8 10y agoAFAIK Jython supports Python 2.7.. so it seems dead because Python 2.7 is dead. (I am not a big fan of Jython myself, being a big fan of Python 3.)
- aargh_aargh 10y agoIt's not dead, it's just really slow. The 2.7 release has been very long in the making, released only 18 months ago. There are stabilization releases to it still coming out. There's a tiny, but dedicated group building it and it shows. Jython 3 is possible if you're willing to put your money where your mouth is.
- gsnedders 10y agoThere's been an imminent 2.7.1 release for a while now, so that will likely eventually ship. AIUI, some of those who were paid to work on it previously are now doing so only in their spare time.
- jimbaker 10y agoYes, that would be true on all counts :) as one of those Jython maintainers. Jython 2.7.1 is currently bottlenecked on finalizing support on Windows for pip/setuptools. It should be the last fix.
- smcl 10y agoMy naive guess would be that most would be "Python 2.7 is what is in /usr/bin/python" - no particular need for it
- dathinab 10y agofunny side fact, on some OS'es (which switched to python 3 as default comparatively early) `/usr/bin/python` links to python 3...