3 ms·
> The possibility you haven't accounted for is "The library ecosystem is like that because things are fast-moving, because people have actual problems they want
by turminal 5y ago
> The possibility you haven't accounted for is "The library ecosystem is like that because things are fast-moving, because people have actual problems they want to solve, and upgrading dependencies and sorting out conflicts is work."
Sorry, I was overly aggressive in my previous comments. All I want is the Python ecosystem to acknowledge some people prefer stable over fast moving, recognize the importance of that and work towards a solution that isn't horrible for their use case.
We all depend on someone somewhere deep in our stack caring for stability, even when we don't realize it.
- gulbanana 5y agoThey have acknowledged it, noted the use case, and decided that they are unable to support it. Python has this in common with most other programming languages. Providing long-term backwards compatibility with the ability to share libraries and update them system-wise is difficult and imposes very high costs on an ecosystem. Only a small number of tech stacks have ever done this (for example, C and Perl) - and not only are they so old that it wasn’t a conscious choice, they have stagnated as a result.