3 ms·
I think he's referring to the resource problem. Let's suppose that you write a library in your copious free time (like he apparently did). Once you reach arou
by ylem 8y ago
I think he's referring to the resource problem. Let's suppose that you write a library in your copious free time (like he apparently did). Once you reach around 100,000 lines of code, it may be nontrivial to update it (for example, if it has say bindings to C)--given that he probably doesn't have a team, but maybe just himself and a graduate student.
- OskarS 8y agoI think it's a fair point to say "the move from 2 -> 3 caused an enormous burden for library maintainers, and many packages aren't going to be upgraded for 3". There's no question that this is true, inside the scientific computing community and out. It was arguably worth it to get a better language, but still, the transition doesn't come without cost. However, that's an entirely different point from "the move from 2 -> 3 means that there's a bunch of science that isn't reproducible anymore". No there isn't, just use older versions of Python. Python 2.7 isn't going to self-destruct in 2020, you can still install it if you want to verify and examine an old result.
- bunderbunder 8y agoI'm curious if people who sunk large efforts into MATLAB or LabView packages have ever made demands that people stop migrating to Python so that people can keep using their stuff. It's not exactly the same issue, but it feels similar to me - asking other people to hold back on what is presumably, for them, progress, so that they will remain able to use something he wrote without any special effort on his part.