3 ms·

Not that I'm against python 3 but please, this dismissive arrogant attitude says more about your experience with python than of people who took their time. Pyth

Not that I'm against python 3 but please, this dismissive arrogant attitude says more about your experience with python than of people who took their time. Python until at least 3.4 was changing way too fast to be considered as a stable platform to port to. The actual window for migration has been more like 3-5 years. Yes this has been sufficient but not so long that people need to question their life choices for being cautions.

Havoc 7y ago
>The actual window for migration has been more like 3-5 years. Fair - the 2-->3 transition was indeed painful. So 3-5 years actual migration window, with advance notice of "Python3 is coming of another 7-5 years". Whichever way you look at it - that's a decade advance notice. In a industry that moves exceptionally fast. If you want to judge me as "dismissive arrogant attitude" for that - so be it. >people need to question their life choices for being cautions. The life choices phrasing was a poor choice on my part & I apologize for that. Message is unchanged though. To me waiting till support window runs out and then thinking of next step is the exact opposite of "being cautious".
- kortilla 7y ago
  >and then thinking of next step is the exact opposite of "being cautious". I don’t think you fully grok the risk of code changes in some of these large legacy systems. EOL with no security patches on a closed system that processes trusted inputs is nearly 0-risk.
  - Havoc 7y ago
    >fully grok the risk Oh I get the risk. What I don't get is someone sitting on this for a decade and at EOL starting to wonder how this is gonna work. >nearly 0-risk That's cool to. I mean there are *nix servers with years of uptime that haven't seen a proper update since ever. All good (sorta). I coded in Python 2 last week - nothing against it. It's the bizarre "this decade long transition just snuck up on us" tone of the question that gets me.
- Twirrim 7y ago
  You're operating from the assumption that people own their own code base, and are actually in a position to deal with that migration. It's a nice bubble you live in, but it is a bubble. There is a lot of industry specific software out there that runs on all sorts of odds and ends of versions of stuff. Some critical software for a particular industry I'm aware of, still relies on CentOS 4, for example. It can't cope, and isn't certified to run on anything newer. The end users often find their hands tied, because there's only one vendor producing software that fits their needs, and those vendors rarely give much of a damn about their end users running out of date software that doesn't get any security patches.
  - Havoc 7y ago
    Sure - poor players are totally OK with rocking ancient version. Such is life. That shouldn't turn into a "so redhat why the hell aren't you supporting decade old tech". The solution here is to shout at the shitty suppliers not crap on redhat for their (reasonable) support cycles.
    - carapace 7y ago
      "dismissive arrogant attitude"
      - Havoc 7y ago
        >"dismissive arrogant attitude" ...decade advance notice...still gets caught out. Dismissive. Fk yeah.

Havoc 7y ago

>The actual window for migration has been more like 3-5 years. Fair - the 2-->3 transition was indeed painful. So 3-5 years actual migration window, with advance notice of "Python3 is coming of another 7-5 years". Whichever way you look at it - that's a decade advance notice. In a industry that moves exceptionally fast. If you want to judge me as "dismissive arrogant attitude" for that - so be it. >people need to question their life choices for being cautions. The life choices phrasing was a poor choice on my part & I apologize for that. Message is unchanged though. To me waiting till support window runs out and then thinking of next step is the exact opposite of "being cautious".

kortilla 7y ago
>and then thinking of next step is the exact opposite of "being cautious". I don’t think you fully grok the risk of code changes in some of these large legacy systems. EOL with no security patches on a closed system that processes trusted inputs is nearly 0-risk.
- Havoc 7y ago
  >fully grok the risk Oh I get the risk. What I don't get is someone sitting on this for a decade and at EOL starting to wonder how this is gonna work. >nearly 0-risk That's cool to. I mean there are *nix servers with years of uptime that haven't seen a proper update since ever. All good (sorta). I coded in Python 2 last week - nothing against it. It's the bizarre "this decade long transition just snuck up on us" tone of the question that gets me.
Twirrim 7y ago
You're operating from the assumption that people own their own code base, and are actually in a position to deal with that migration. It's a nice bubble you live in, but it is a bubble. There is a lot of industry specific software out there that runs on all sorts of odds and ends of versions of stuff. Some critical software for a particular industry I'm aware of, still relies on CentOS 4, for example. It can't cope, and isn't certified to run on anything newer. The end users often find their hands tied, because there's only one vendor producing software that fits their needs, and those vendors rarely give much of a damn about their end users running out of date software that doesn't get any security patches.
- Havoc 7y ago
  Sure - poor players are totally OK with rocking ancient version. Such is life. That shouldn't turn into a "so redhat why the hell aren't you supporting decade old tech". The solution here is to shout at the shitty suppliers not crap on redhat for their (reasonable) support cycles.
  - carapace 7y ago
    "dismissive arrogant attitude"
    - Havoc 7y ago
      >"dismissive arrogant attitude" ...decade advance notice...still gets caught out. Dismissive. Fk yeah.