4 ms·

I don't understand the rating in the table. After the Python 2/3 migration I wouldn't expect compatibility problems for the forseable future. And why should Pyt

I don't understand the rating in the table. After the Python 2/3 migration I wouldn't expect compatibility problems for the forseable future. And why should Python not work as well for shell scripts as Perl? Why should Java not work for shell scripts? You can even run Java files without an explicit compilation step these days. Why should Python, JavaScript, Java, and C# not be extensible? Honestly the whole post doesn't really make sense to me and it looks like someone is just paying homage to a thing of the past. You can clearly see the decline of Perl here: https://redmonk.com/rstephens/2021/08/05/top-20-june-2021/ https://redmonk.com/rstephens/2021/08/05/top-20-june-2021/

KaiserPro 3y ago
because anything written in 2 wont run as is on 3, anything using async will need 3.4(?) anything using type hints of f strings needs 3.7( or 8, I get hazy)
- cryptos 3y ago
  I already mentioned the Python 2/3 problem, but the other things you listed sound like usual new features, which won't work on older versions, obviously. However, I'd expect Python 3.4 code to run perfectly fine on a Python 3.8 interpreter.
- Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  > because anything written in 2 wont run as is on 3 Not true. "anything" is too strong of a word. There's plenty of simple code that works fine in both 2 and 3. For basic scripts, it's not hard to make code that is compatible with both, with the only odd thing to do is using parentheses in your print calls. You can even use "from __future__ import print_function" in Python 2 code to get Python 3's print() behavior. > anything using async will need 3.4(?) anything using type hints of f strings needs 3.7( or 8, I get hazy) What's the alternative? Should a language never receive new features?
  - KaiserPro 3y ago
    > Not true. "anything" is too strong of a word. technically correct is the best kind of correct.

KaiserPro 3y ago

because anything written in 2 wont run as is on 3, anything using async will need 3.4(?) anything using type hints of f strings needs 3.7( or 8, I get hazy)

cryptos 3y ago
I already mentioned the Python 2/3 problem, but the other things you listed sound like usual new features, which won't work on older versions, obviously. However, I'd expect Python 3.4 code to run perfectly fine on a Python 3.8 interpreter.
Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
> because anything written in 2 wont run as is on 3 Not true. "anything" is too strong of a word. There's plenty of simple code that works fine in both 2 and 3. For basic scripts, it's not hard to make code that is compatible with both, with the only odd thing to do is using parentheses in your print calls. You can even use "from __future__ import print_function" in Python 2 code to get Python 3's print() behavior. > anything using async will need 3.4(?) anything using type hints of f strings needs 3.7( or 8, I get hazy) What's the alternative? Should a language never receive new features?
- KaiserPro 3y ago
  > Not true. "anything" is too strong of a word. technically correct is the best kind of correct.