4 ms·
Is this the most infamous failure of a version upgrade ever in software history?
by jimbob45 7y ago
Is this the most infamous failure of a version upgrade ever in software history?
- fzzzy 7y agoPerl 6?
- loeg 7y agoPeople actually use Python 3, though. The Python developers succeeding in forking the language and community. No one really uses Perl 6, as far as I know. You're right that Perl6 is another great example of a bad language fork decision.
- fzzzy 7y agoI feel like the Python 3 experience could have been predicted by looking at the Perl 6 experience.
- lizmat 7y agoIt's not too late to change the name of Python 3, just as Perl 6 has changed its name to Raku (https://raku.org https://raku.org using the #rakulang tag on social media). :-)
- RMPR 7y agoThe community is certainly not that much into Raku, but from this past thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22906703 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22906703 > On the #raku channel on Freenode, several users are using Raku in production.
- lizmat 7y agoSome vocal members of the Perl community have not been into Perl 6. That didn't change with the name change. But if anything, the change in name should make clear that even though Raku is clearly a programming language in the Perl lineage, it is not aiming specifically for the Perl community. Anymore, at least.
- CUViper 7y agoPerl 6 may be a contender, now so different that it's renamed to Raku.
- ogre_codes 7y agoUpgrading a programming language with breaking changes is hard. Ask the PERL and PHP communities how hard it is. PHP 6 ended up getting dumpstered and the “next” version of PERL was so different they had to change the name and the community never really recovered. Python has at least grown/ survived through the upgrade.
- Scarblac 7y agoIt was mostly a success. People could continue to use the old version for over a decade after release of the new one if they wanted to, and the end result is that Python is now one of the most popular programming languages.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y agoThey've also been given more than enough guidance to prepare for a smooth upgrade.
- zerkten 7y agoHow is it a failure? When they were talking about Python 3 at PyCon 2008 and 2009, it was expected that the migration would take this long. Folks knew migrating would be long and hard, and that the approach would need to be revised. It's only relatively recently that Python 3 passed a certain threshold that made deprecation of Python 2 something that could actually be executed upon. Had the growth been slower in the last five years I think the timeline would have been different. If I was going to critique Python "failures" I think the bigger target for me would be the integration of async concepts into the platform and language. This could have been handled more smoothly and with better community cohesion, but most HNers only have a superficial understanding, i.e the GIL is bad and Python can't compete with Go.
- kitanata 7y agoWasn't the original timeline meant to be completed in 2014?
- zerkten 7y agoThe original timeline was very much a guess. By the time that people got into the details in 2010-2014, it was clearer it would take much longer. This doesn't make it failure unless you lost a bet with someone on the timeline.
- pseudalopex 7y agoThe migration succeeded but the original plan didn't. People were supposed to write Python 2 and generate Python 3.[1] What worked was making it possible to have a single code base. [1] http://python-notes.curiousefficiency.org/en/latest/python3/questions_and_answers.html#what-other-changes-have-occurred-that-simplify-migration http://python-notes.curiousefficiency.org/en/latest/python3/...
- guitarbill 7y agoAgreed, all successful migrations I've seen started early and consistently used `from __future__` and python-future to write compatible code over a few years. This incremental approach almost made it trivial.
- njharman 7y agoNot even close. Also, it takes pretty vivid imagination / stout obstinance to characterize vast majority of pre-existing libs/projects and almost all new project starts using new version as a "failure". Bunch of whining and FUD does not equate to failure.
- loeg 7y ago> Not even close. What example would you point to as a bigger failure?
- nickelpro 7y agoPerl 6, which failed so hard it's not called Perl anymore
- serf 7y agoyeah, but to be fair people had a gut-hate reaction to the word 'perl' before the update. Perl ranks up there at the top of 'lists of programming languages people love to hate.'
- WesternStar 7y agoAll of the C versions post 99 or so probably have worse adoption. New versions of ALGOL, Visual Basic, Cobol. Being infamous isn't failure being unknown is a failure. Raku is a success I never have used Perl but I checked out Raku seems alright.
- int_19h 7y agoALGOL 68?
- pluc 7y agophp has entered the chat
- iso-8859-1 7y agosince php6 was never released, it cannot be a failure.
- gonational 7y agoPython was roughly # 20 when “P3K” came out. Python is now roughly #1. Let the data tell the story, and not the other way around.
- jhayward 7y agoPython 3 is an enormous success so I don't know what you could be referring to. Everyone who ships software knows that there is always a very small but disproportionately vocal set of malcontents who can't accept changes; that's their issue, not anyone else's.
- mixmastamyk 7y agoIf only we all could "fail" so spectacularly. :D