4 ms·

I think it makes a great deal of sense for the Python core team to say "we're finished with Python 2 and want nothing more to do with it". But I'm very disappo

I think it makes a great deal of sense for the Python core team to say "we're finished with Python 2 and want nothing more to do with it". But I'm very disappointed that the Python Software Foundation isn't explictly supporting people who want to keep Python 2 compiling and running on modern systems. I think that would be well within their remit to "promote, protect, and advance the Python programming language". This is particularly so because Python is widely used for scientific purposes, and being able to reproduce old results is valuable. Even before Python 3.0 appeared, I came across scientists saying "I prefer to stick with Fortran because new Python versions break old code too frequently".

int_19h 7y ago
PSF does not object to people who keep Python 2 compiling and running, such as ActiveState (https://www.activestate.com/company/press/press-releases/activestate-offers-extended-support-for-python-2-beyond-eol/ https://www.activestate.com/company/press/press-releases/act...). This case is different, because it's a project that uses the Python name, but actively adds features to the language. This is the classic example of brand confusion - someone might try to use it, find something to complain about, and PSF's reputation suffers as the result. They also get support overhead from the users of the fork (even if all they do is tell them to go away, that is still triage time that could be spent on other issues).
- mjw1007 7y ago
  "Does not object" is better than nothing, but I think it would be better if the PSF actively helped to coordinate this work (again, without bothering the core team). As far as I'm concerned, this is exactly the sort of thing that the PSF exists for.
forgotpwd16 7y ago
>This is particularly so because Python is widely used for scientific purposes, and being able to reproduce old results is valuable. You can always download an old version and the respective libraries and use them to reproduce any results you want. That doesn't mean that old version should be supported anymore.

int_19h 7y ago

PSF does not object to people who keep Python 2 compiling and running, such as ActiveState (https://www.activestate.com/company/press/press-releases/activestate-offers-extended-support-for-python-2-beyond-eol/ https://www.activestate.com/company/press/press-releases/act...). This case is different, because it's a project that uses the Python name, but actively adds features to the language. This is the classic example of brand confusion - someone might try to use it, find something to complain about, and PSF's reputation suffers as the result. They also get support overhead from the users of the fork (even if all they do is tell them to go away, that is still triage time that could be spent on other issues).

mjw1007 7y ago
"Does not object" is better than nothing, but I think it would be better if the PSF actively helped to coordinate this work (again, without bothering the core team). As far as I'm concerned, this is exactly the sort of thing that the PSF exists for.

forgotpwd16 7y ago

>This is particularly so because Python is widely used for scientific purposes, and being able to reproduce old results is valuable. You can always download an old version and the respective libraries and use them to reproduce any results you want. That doesn't mean that old version should be supported anymore.