5 ms·

There's nothing wrong with using Python 2 for a PoC.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
I'd be much more reluctant to get on OP’s case about it than GP, but there’s a strong argument to be made that this hurts the overall python ecosystem.
- kick 7y ago
  There's also a strong argument to be made that people shouldn't have to care about ecosystems that are so delicate that a proof of concept in a previous version "hurts the overall [ecosystem]." "How dare you use a hammer! We're all using Hammer 2 now! I don't care that it was 'Only one nail," put it down and pick up Hammer 2! Your hammer is what, ten years old? That's ancient! It's not even compatible with my Hammer 2! What do you mean, 'They hit the same fucking nails!' That's not the point! I can't track how many nails you're hitting per-minute now, or even take advantage of the nails you've hit! It's barbaric!" Can you imagine?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    To make the analogy work I have to imagine that the two hammers cause horrible problems when used at the same time, and that they're both free with 5 minute shipping. It's a sucky situation to be in, but we should probably get everyone on the same hammer. (If we want a somewhat less nonsensical analogy, replace hammer with screwdriver. Two incompatible screw head patterns and you can only use one driver on any particular object.) So sure don't nitpick a toy project, but if someone's writing significant code in python 2... it's not ideal. - But all of this is a dumb tangent, and we should just appreciate how funny it is to ask that this nonsensical pointless quasi-OS-breaking code be done in python 3 instead.
    - kick 7y ago
      No "horrible problems" arise from Python 2 being used on the same system that Python 3 is on. The only problems are trivial, which was highlighted in the analogy.
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        I didn't say same system, I said same time. As in, trying to run one program with both.
        kick 7y ago
        Wouldn't occur in this case, as the script starts with: #!/usr/bin/env python2
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        You're arguing against something I never said. Yes, this file, completely in isolation, has no problem. But people want to different pieces of python code together. If one or the other only works with a specific version, it becomes a problem when you try to combine them. Therefore, best practice is to get everyone on the same version. We want to stop having to ask which version everything is, and facing the disappointment when things can't go in the same program. We want to get back to the situation where it's just 'hammer', and that's good enough for 95% of people.
        kick 7y ago
        ...use the hammer that didn't arbitrarily break compatibility, then? (Note that the original analogy pointed out that they couldn't be mixed, anyway: "or even take advantage of the nails you've hit!") This is like complaining that the well is poisoned when you're the one who put arsenic in it. This also isn't even an open source project, so it's not like you can mix and match anyway.
        7y ago

I'd be much more reluctant to get on OP’s case about it than GP, but there’s a strong argument to be made that this hurts the overall python ecosystem.

kick 7y ago
There's also a strong argument to be made that people shouldn't have to care about ecosystems that are so delicate that a proof of concept in a previous version "hurts the overall [ecosystem]." "How dare you use a hammer! We're all using Hammer 2 now! I don't care that it was 'Only one nail," put it down and pick up Hammer 2! Your hammer is what, ten years old? That's ancient! It's not even compatible with my Hammer 2! What do you mean, 'They hit the same fucking nails!' That's not the point! I can't track how many nails you're hitting per-minute now, or even take advantage of the nails you've hit! It's barbaric!" Can you imagine?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  To make the analogy work I have to imagine that the two hammers cause horrible problems when used at the same time, and that they're both free with 5 minute shipping. It's a sucky situation to be in, but we should probably get everyone on the same hammer. (If we want a somewhat less nonsensical analogy, replace hammer with screwdriver. Two incompatible screw head patterns and you can only use one driver on any particular object.) So sure don't nitpick a toy project, but if someone's writing significant code in python 2... it's not ideal. - But all of this is a dumb tangent, and we should just appreciate how funny it is to ask that this nonsensical pointless quasi-OS-breaking code be done in python 3 instead.
  - kick 7y ago
    No "horrible problems" arise from Python 2 being used on the same system that Python 3 is on. The only problems are trivial, which was highlighted in the analogy.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      I didn't say same system, I said same time. As in, trying to run one program with both.
      - kick 7y ago
        Wouldn't occur in this case, as the script starts with: #!/usr/bin/env python2
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        You're arguing against something I never said. Yes, this file, completely in isolation, has no problem. But people want to different pieces of python code together. If one or the other only works with a specific version, it becomes a problem when you try to combine them. Therefore, best practice is to get everyone on the same version. We want to stop having to ask which version everything is, and facing the disappointment when things can't go in the same program. We want to get back to the situation where it's just 'hammer', and that's good enough for 95% of people.
        kick 7y ago
        ...use the hammer that didn't arbitrarily break compatibility, then? (Note that the original analogy pointed out that they couldn't be mixed, anyway: "or even take advantage of the nails you've hit!") This is like complaining that the well is poisoned when you're the one who put arsenic in it. This also isn't even an open source project, so it's not like you can mix and match anyway.
        7y ago