3 ms·
> When businesses and lifetimes are measured in decades (not months) it is VERY nice to build on stuff that has longer support horizons. Indeed. I'm in the pro
by Shared404 6y ago
> When businesses and lifetimes are measured in decades (not months) it is VERY nice to build on stuff that has longer support horizons.
Indeed. I'm in the process of writing some simple web stuff. I considered python, but decided against it because I'm doing this for free, and don't want to be asked to come back and fix it in a decade because "Python 4.6 needed a feature, and it'll break compatibility with Python 3"
Yes, they could still just run it with Python 3, but do I really want to go through the effort of explaining how to configure that instead of just handing over a working binary?
- xapata 6y agoWhy would you worry about that for Python? The community learned their lesson. I'd worry more about other language maintainers who haven't had the learning experience.
- Shared404 6y agoBecause with Python the possibility is still there. With C/Rust/Go, it's simple to statically compile and remove the possibility of that type of issue. It's not a program that will be running on a server, so I'm not really concerned about security fixes/updates to libraries.
- xapata 6y agoUh, just use the old interpreter. Same situation.
- Shared404 6y agoAnd then the distro they are using stops shipping Python 3 by default because "No one should be using that anymore.". While I could bundle python with the program, that's getting to be more hassle then it really seems like it's worth. In addition, I'm not particularly comfortable with configuring python, so there's a non negligible chance I'd screw that up and be in the same position. It's not that it's impossible for Python to work in this situation, it's that me doing it is a bad idea. I'm sorry if my original comment implied otherwise.