5 ms·

Python 2.7 is outdated by Python 3.5. The fact that there is a bugfix release doesn't change that. I mean look at other things. You can still program in C 89 o

by js8 10y ago

Python 2.7 is outdated by Python 3.5. The fact that there is a bugfix release doesn't change that. I mean look at other things. You can still program in C 89 or FORTRAN 77 or COBOL 74 (and no doubt there is somebody still supporting compilers and runtimes for those), but they are all obsolete standards. Addendum: I think for standards like programming language semantics (which in case of Python is directly embodied in the C implementation), "obsolete" means there is a new standard by some official body (say, the developer of the old standard) that addresses shortcomings of the old standard. So "out of date" is the fitting equivalent of "obsolete" from the Oxford definition.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
wfunction 10y ago
> Addendum: I think for standards like programming language semantics (which in case of Python is directly embodied in the C implementation), "obsolete" means there is a new standard by some official body (say, the developer of the old standard) that addresses shortcomings of the old standard. Really? So even if no one ever uses it, it still renders the old one obsolete?!
- js8 10y ago
  > So even if no one ever uses it, it still renders the old one obsolete?! This is a strawman, because I don't think this ever happens (feel free to give an example). There will always be people who try to use new standard; they may abandon it later, but they will at least try to use it. In any case, this is not really relevant to Python 3, which is used plenty and more and more every day. And your insistence that Python 2.7 is not dead really reminds me of this sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE
  - wfunction 10y ago
    >> So even if no one ever uses it, it still renders the old one obsolete?! > This is a strawman, because I don't think this ever happens (feel free to give an example). There will always be people who try to use new standard; they may abandon it later, but they will at least try to use it. ...I thought it was obvious I didn't mean the case where literally NO ONE was using it, but apparently it wasn't. Sorry. My point was, if it doesn't catch on, then does it still render what came before it obsolete? Is it only about time and whether it fixes some things from before? Not about whether it's actually used, or whether it introduces other problems, or whether the previous technology is still in widespread use, or a million other factors? Really? As for Python 3 being used and more every day, yes, I never claimed it was obsolete or dead or anything else. I'm just saying Python 2.7 is being used too, and hence it's not obsolete either as you seem to think. You claimed it was, so I asked for your definition of the term. You're rejecting the standard one and you still haven't given me one that you're willing to apply to things other than Python. Not to mention I don't see why software deserves special treatment for the word's definition here.
    - js8 10y ago
      I don't think this is going to be a productive discussion, so this is my last comment on the matter. I already gave you a definition of what it means to be obsolete for standards (such as specifications of programming languages). In general, an old standard will become obsolete once the new standard (that is supposed to replace it) is finalized (for example, in RFCs, they explicitly say that). At that point, there are probably no serious users of the new standard yet, so the actual usage doesn't matter. Of course a standard can be de facto rejected by people abandoning it instead of accepting it. Then usually there will either be another standard that obsoletes the old one again (as was a case with XHTML and HTML 5), or people will move on entirely to something else; in either case, the old standard will remain obsolete.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  You should be aware that trying to badger people with strict adherence to an arbitrarily-chosen definition of a term as a way to avoid countering their arguments does not make you look intelligent, does not make you look well-qualified to argue the topic, and does not make you look like you're winning the argument. Resorting to technical haranguing about the definition of a term typically, in fact, gives the appearance of someone who does not have an argument to make and is searching for any way to try to salvage a declaration of victory. Just so you know.
  - wfunction 10y ago
    I'm not trying to make anything or anyone "look" any particular way. I'm trying to present an argument against the undeserved misuse of a label that carries a negative connotation and that is carelessly thrown around in this industry far too much in order to dismiss technologies people don't consider smoking hot enough for their tastes. How in the world was my definition "arbitrarily-chosen"? I literally chose definition #1 on Oxford English dictionaries. That's arbitrary?!
  - not_again 10y ago
    You write sooo well and yet the content is stupid.
    - nindalf 10y ago
      > write so well I disagree. He uses complicated words where simple ones would do and other words that are redundant. For example, read his sentence after removing "typically, in fact,". It conveys the same meaning but sounds less pretentious.
      - wfunction 10y ago
        I thought the two additional "o"s that you missed indicated sarcasm.
AlexeyBrin 10y ago
> You can still program in C 89 or FORTRAN 77 or COBOL 74 (and no doubt there is somebody still supporting compilers and runtimes for those), but they are all obsolete standards. The situation with C89 and Fortran 77 is completely different than what you see today with Python 2 vs Python 3. For 99.9999% of C89 and Fortran 77 code you can build the old code with new C and Fortran compilers and use it from today's standards. You can take a piece of code written 30 years ago, recompile it and it usually works.
- js8 10y ago
  I don't disagree it is different. My argument was that a new release of compiler for an obsolete standard doesn't cause the standard not to be obsolete. I am pretty sure there is theoretical way to run Python 2 code alongside Python 3 code, but they simply decided it's not worth the effort. Edit: I think historically Python 2/3 divide is more akin to Maclisp/Common Lisp divide, but in the latter, the situation was even more complicated. But I doubt you can just take Maclisp code and run it on Common Lisp implementation, despite that fact that it was meant as a successor.
coldtea 10y ago
>Python 2.7 is outdated by Python 3.5. The fact that there is a bugfix release doesn't change that. That's just what the lead project team declared. Not what the user base asked for or wants. >You can still program in C 89 or FORTRAN 77 or COBOL 74 (and no doubt there is somebody still supporting compilers and runtimes for those), but they are all obsolete standards. That's because people stopped using them organically. That's not the case with Python 2 -- Python 3 was declared "the new hotness" with a decree from above. It's like as if the W3C comes out with some incompatible HTML NG on their own and says that HMTL 5 is "end of line", giving billions of webpages the middle finger. Even worse, it's also as if HTML NG only had some marginal improvements over HTML 5, and was otherwise the same.
- js8 10y ago
  > That's just what the lead project team declared. Not what the user base asked for or wants. You think they are doing it just for kicks? There are no issues with Python 2? They are also part of the user base, and they did it for a reason. > That's because people stopped using them organically. That's not the case with Python 2 -- Python 3 was declared "the new hotness" with a decree from above. Well, I for instance stopped using Python 2 when Python 3 came out, if it was possible for me to do so (I had all the libraries I needed). I understand that many people can't do it, but people are organically moving from Python 2 to Python 3, not the other way around. Nobody is really forcing you to not use Python 2, just as nobody is forcing you not to use FORTRAN 77 or COBOL 74. It's just that the language will not evolve anymore, and as far as runtime goes, you will be on your own eventually. > It's like as if the W3C comes out with some incompatible HTML NG on their own and says that HMTL 5 is "end of line", giving billions of webpages the middle finger. I think I already addressed this in my other comments.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >You think they are doing it just for kicks? Yes. From a false sense of "we know better than you what's good for you". And also from not being connected to actual business and end user needs. >There are no issues with Python 2? That's irrelevant. There are issues with Python 3. Besides, the issues that Python 3 fixed over 2 are marginal at best and most could be retroffited to 2.x (as this 2.8 release proves). Nothing earth shattering to make the transition worth it. >Nobody is really forcing you to not use Python 2, just as nobody is forcing you not to use FORTRAN 77 or COBOL 74. It's just that the language will not evolve anymore, and as far as runtime goes, you will be on your own eventually. It's more likely that Python will suffer from people moving to other languages (and already, first Rails and then JS have won the server side over Python big time, and JS looks poised to be more general use too), than that anything good will comes out of this "you're free to use 2.x, it just wont be updated anymore".
dagss 10y ago
Thanks for bringing up Fortran 77. Lots of F77 code is in use today through R and SciPy bindings etc. -- millions of users every day, thousands of compilations every day. Just because new code is not written in it, it is very much in use, nobody wants to rewrite solid code that has stood the test of time. The word you are looking for is "deprecated", not obsolete.

by js8 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

wfunction 10y ago

> Addendum: I think for standards like programming language semantics (which in case of Python is directly embodied in the C implementation), "obsolete" means there is a new standard by some official body (say, the developer of the old standard) that addresses shortcomings of the old standard. Really? So even if no one ever uses it, it still renders the old one obsolete?!

js8 10y ago
> So even if no one ever uses it, it still renders the old one obsolete?! This is a strawman, because I don't think this ever happens (feel free to give an example). There will always be people who try to use new standard; they may abandon it later, but they will at least try to use it. In any case, this is not really relevant to Python 3, which is used plenty and more and more every day. And your insistence that Python 2.7 is not dead really reminds me of this sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE
- wfunction 10y ago
  >> So even if no one ever uses it, it still renders the old one obsolete?! > This is a strawman, because I don't think this ever happens (feel free to give an example). There will always be people who try to use new standard; they may abandon it later, but they will at least try to use it. ...I thought it was obvious I didn't mean the case where literally NO ONE was using it, but apparently it wasn't. Sorry. My point was, if it doesn't catch on, then does it still render what came before it obsolete? Is it only about time and whether it fixes some things from before? Not about whether it's actually used, or whether it introduces other problems, or whether the previous technology is still in widespread use, or a million other factors? Really? As for Python 3 being used and more every day, yes, I never claimed it was obsolete or dead or anything else. I'm just saying Python 2.7 is being used too, and hence it's not obsolete either as you seem to think. You claimed it was, so I asked for your definition of the term. You're rejecting the standard one and you still haven't given me one that you're willing to apply to things other than Python. Not to mention I don't see why software deserves special treatment for the word's definition here.
  - js8 10y ago
    I don't think this is going to be a productive discussion, so this is my last comment on the matter. I already gave you a definition of what it means to be obsolete for standards (such as specifications of programming languages). In general, an old standard will become obsolete once the new standard (that is supposed to replace it) is finalized (for example, in RFCs, they explicitly say that). At that point, there are probably no serious users of the new standard yet, so the actual usage doesn't matter. Of course a standard can be de facto rejected by people abandoning it instead of accepting it. Then usually there will either be another standard that obsoletes the old one again (as was a case with XHTML and HTML 5), or people will move on entirely to something else; in either case, the old standard will remain obsolete.
ubernostrum 10y ago
You should be aware that trying to badger people with strict adherence to an arbitrarily-chosen definition of a term as a way to avoid countering their arguments does not make you look intelligent, does not make you look well-qualified to argue the topic, and does not make you look like you're winning the argument. Resorting to technical haranguing about the definition of a term typically, in fact, gives the appearance of someone who does not have an argument to make and is searching for any way to try to salvage a declaration of victory. Just so you know.
- wfunction 10y ago
  I'm not trying to make anything or anyone "look" any particular way. I'm trying to present an argument against the undeserved misuse of a label that carries a negative connotation and that is carelessly thrown around in this industry far too much in order to dismiss technologies people don't consider smoking hot enough for their tastes. How in the world was my definition "arbitrarily-chosen"? I literally chose definition #1 on Oxford English dictionaries. That's arbitrary?!
- not_again 10y ago
  You write sooo well and yet the content is stupid.
  - nindalf 10y ago
    > write so well I disagree. He uses complicated words where simple ones would do and other words that are redundant. For example, read his sentence after removing "typically, in fact,". It conveys the same meaning but sounds less pretentious.
    - wfunction 10y ago
      I thought the two additional "o"s that you missed indicated sarcasm.

AlexeyBrin 10y ago

> You can still program in C 89 or FORTRAN 77 or COBOL 74 (and no doubt there is somebody still supporting compilers and runtimes for those), but they are all obsolete standards. The situation with C89 and Fortran 77 is completely different than what you see today with Python 2 vs Python 3. For 99.9999% of C89 and Fortran 77 code you can build the old code with new C and Fortran compilers and use it from today's standards. You can take a piece of code written 30 years ago, recompile it and it usually works.

js8 10y ago
I don't disagree it is different. My argument was that a new release of compiler for an obsolete standard doesn't cause the standard not to be obsolete. I am pretty sure there is theoretical way to run Python 2 code alongside Python 3 code, but they simply decided it's not worth the effort. Edit: I think historically Python 2/3 divide is more akin to Maclisp/Common Lisp divide, but in the latter, the situation was even more complicated. But I doubt you can just take Maclisp code and run it on Common Lisp implementation, despite that fact that it was meant as a successor.

coldtea 10y ago

>Python 2.7 is outdated by Python 3.5. The fact that there is a bugfix release doesn't change that. That's just what the lead project team declared. Not what the user base asked for or wants. >You can still program in C 89 or FORTRAN 77 or COBOL 74 (and no doubt there is somebody still supporting compilers and runtimes for those), but they are all obsolete standards. That's because people stopped using them organically. That's not the case with Python 2 -- Python 3 was declared "the new hotness" with a decree from above. It's like as if the W3C comes out with some incompatible HTML NG on their own and says that HMTL 5 is "end of line", giving billions of webpages the middle finger. Even worse, it's also as if HTML NG only had some marginal improvements over HTML 5, and was otherwise the same.

js8 10y ago
> That's just what the lead project team declared. Not what the user base asked for or wants. You think they are doing it just for kicks? There are no issues with Python 2? They are also part of the user base, and they did it for a reason. > That's because people stopped using them organically. That's not the case with Python 2 -- Python 3 was declared "the new hotness" with a decree from above. Well, I for instance stopped using Python 2 when Python 3 came out, if it was possible for me to do so (I had all the libraries I needed). I understand that many people can't do it, but people are organically moving from Python 2 to Python 3, not the other way around. Nobody is really forcing you to not use Python 2, just as nobody is forcing you not to use FORTRAN 77 or COBOL 74. It's just that the language will not evolve anymore, and as far as runtime goes, you will be on your own eventually. > It's like as if the W3C comes out with some incompatible HTML NG on their own and says that HMTL 5 is "end of line", giving billions of webpages the middle finger. I think I already addressed this in my other comments.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >You think they are doing it just for kicks? Yes. From a false sense of "we know better than you what's good for you". And also from not being connected to actual business and end user needs. >There are no issues with Python 2? That's irrelevant. There are issues with Python 3. Besides, the issues that Python 3 fixed over 2 are marginal at best and most could be retroffited to 2.x (as this 2.8 release proves). Nothing earth shattering to make the transition worth it. >Nobody is really forcing you to not use Python 2, just as nobody is forcing you not to use FORTRAN 77 or COBOL 74. It's just that the language will not evolve anymore, and as far as runtime goes, you will be on your own eventually. It's more likely that Python will suffer from people moving to other languages (and already, first Rails and then JS have won the server side over Python big time, and JS looks poised to be more general use too), than that anything good will comes out of this "you're free to use 2.x, it just wont be updated anymore".

dagss 10y ago

Thanks for bringing up Fortran 77. Lots of F77 code is in use today through R and SciPy bindings etc. -- millions of users every day, thousands of compilations every day. Just because new code is not written in it, it is very much in use, nobody wants to rewrite solid code that has stood the test of time. The word you are looking for is "deprecated", not obsolete.