4 ms·
It’s funny, on the Mac one becomes used to constant changes, rewriting damn near everything just to stand still. Yet I designed my Mac app long ago to depend o
by makecheck 7y ago
It’s funny, on the Mac one becomes used to constant changes, rewriting damn near everything just to stand still. Yet I designed my Mac app long ago to depend on the system “Python 2” (bound to C++), because it seemed that both the installation itself and the Python language and libraries were very stable. Looking back, this turned out to be sustainable for a remarkably long time, as “Python 2” really did evolve only additively and there was almost no reason to even touch 15-year-old code that was relying on Python 2. For the Mac platform especially, this reliability is unheard of.
More amazing to me is that in Catalina, the release famous for breaking just about everything else, “Python 2” is still there and works as it always has! Of course, Apple did announce that it will be ripped out in the next release. :)
- pfranz 7y agoI think this weird thing happened with Python 2. I believe Python 2.6 (Oct-2008) was the last "feature release" and 2.7 (Jul-2010) was intended as a bridge. So since 2008, 2.x users have been shielded from most all of the normal churn of any widely used language that's in active development. What I don't think people realize is that not only are you expected to move to 3.x, but you'll have to keep up or fall behind with new 3.x releases. During that same period (since 2008) 3.x has had 9 big releases. Of course that 2.x stability was done with the assumption you'd move to 3.x and isn't sustainable for PSF indefinitely.
- cannam 7y ago> Of course, Apple did announce that it will be ripped out in the next release They did? Damn, I was using that...