> Perhaps your "fed up"-ness means you overlook conversations which do go beyond that? Or do you put me into that category as well? I do put you in that catego

> Perhaps your "fed up"-ness means you overlook conversations which do go beyond that? Or do you put me into that category as well? I do put you in that category, because you seem to be focused much more on the negative, rather than being constructive and trying to find solutions to problems. > I'm also not sure you understood all of Hinsen's points. I say this because you wrote ""hey, do 100x the work otherwise our science won't be reproducible" stuff" I've read and directly disagreed with his essay. His points are: - Python 2 going away orphans a lot of software, because there's a lack of resources/willingness to port to Python 3. - Python 3 didn't provide enough value to the scientific community to justify all the breakage (this is true for almost every community, btw). - SciPy breaks compatibility roughly every 2-3 years, which is a bad fit for the pace of scientific computing. - Beyond that, breaking compatibility threatens reproducibility. - The SciPy community doesn't seem to know or care about compatibility concerns. - Projects written on top of SciPy libraries ("Layer 3" code) have to keep updating, and they don't always have resources/willingness to do that. - It would be cool if SciPy laid out a support schedule. - It isn't cool that SciPy says, "hey use us", and then breaks compat all the time. - There are some languages/platforms that haven't changed in decades, this isn't an excuse. Here's what I've said: - Agree Python 3 didn't provide enough value. - If you want to build something on SciPy that you expect to last for decades, you should look for a compat guarantee. If you don't, that's on you. - If you want new features plus decades of compat, that's a ludicrous amount of work. - If you want to find a way forward, start a dialogue with SciPy devs. Hinson's examples of Fortran and Java are illuminating. Fortran's a platform that's seen very minimal evolution over its history. That's exactly the reason people want to use SciPy instead of Fortran. Java's a platform with... billions of engineering hours? It's ironic that a guy who doesn't want to spend the resources to update his own software is asserting that someone else can continually deliver a modern scientific computing platform with new features while never breaking compat, they just don't feel like it ("It's all a matter of policy, not technology"). That's wrong, it's a question of resources. --- My diagnosis here is communication breakdown. Everyone here wants the same thing: use a modern software stack for scientific computing. So again I'll say get on the mailing lists, get on IRC, go to the conferences, and talk to the engineers. Be constructive.