3 ms·
In a way, sure; but shouldn’t this have been a “macOS 11.0” or “macOS 12.0” change? Slipping it into some minor update that many users will install without a s
by makecheck 5y ago
In a way, sure; but shouldn’t this have been a “macOS 11.0” or “macOS 12.0” change?
Slipping it into some minor update that many users will install without a second thought is not a reasonable thing. It could break software that people use, not realizing they depend on Python to use it.
- _aavaa_ 5y agoI can see the argument. But I still think it's shifting the blame from the developers of this software that people use but which haven't bothered updating in over a decade. EDIT: For the past, I don't know how many versions of macOS, you'd get the following message when running python2: "WARNING: Python 2.7 is not recommended. This version is included in macOS for compatibility with legacy software. Future versions of macOS will not include Python 2.7."
- upbeat_general 5y agoTrue, except that's only been since catalina which is from 2019. While I get that programs can't practically run on a new OS decades later, I don't think we should be okay with such a short lifespan as on macOS.
- _aavaa_ 5y agoBut it isn't a short lifespan. Python 2 had it's original EOL in 2015. It's been 7 years since the date of the original EOL. Which is to say nothing about how much heads up they had before 2015.
- sam_bristow 5y agoDidn't Apple completely remove Java in 10.8 (Lion) which wasnt a major version number bump either? I don't use MacOS, but others have mentioned it's been printing deprecation warnings for quite a while now.
- makecheck 5y agoIn the days when it was OS 10.8, 10.9, etc. those were major versions, updated over a year and a half apart. Apple may call it “12.3” now but it is still released every few weeks or months, with just as much randomness as 10.8.3 would have been.