5 ms·
> the shift from 2.x to "current" looks like amateur hour "Amateur hour" would be to expect the shift to occur overnight, with magic powers conferred by unicor
by ableal 16y ago
> the shift from 2.x to "current" looks like amateur hour
"Amateur hour" would be to expect the shift to occur overnight, with magic powers conferred by unicorns and butterflies. If you look at the developers posts (instead of random uninformed excitable blogs) you'll see that it was realistically expected to take a few years.
See, for instance, core developer J. Noller's comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2130854 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2130854
- martincmartin 16y agoPlease don't feed the trolls.
- pero 16y agoWith what? Knowledge? Get over yourself.
- jedbrown 16y agoPerhaps my biggest complaint is that until recently, Python-2.x releases were not packaged with an executable named "python2", thus during the transition to Python-3.x, there is no safe way to specify which major version your script requires in the shebang. Arch Linux is already using version 3 for /usr/bin/python so any third-party scripts that require version 2 are broken. Other distros may wait a few years to do this, but it will still be painful. It would be much nicer if script writers could update the shebang to use "python2" if that is what they need. (It is difficult to make the same code be valid in python3 and python2 if you have to support people on RHEL4 or RHEL5 (python 2.3 and 2.4 respectively), for example.)
- JeremyBanks 16y agoThis is a mistake on the part of Arch. The Python team intended that "python" would be the canonical name for the Python 2 binary, with "python3" used where Python 3 was intended.
- pero 16y agoIs this standard practice for language new version roll-outs?