3 ms·

> Addendum: I think for standards like programming language semantics (which in case of Python is directly embodied in the C implementation), "obsolete" means t

> 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.

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.