2 ms·
In the absence of infinite money to actively maintain all libraries, there is no alternative. The core of the problem is that libraries and even the language i
by whatever1 3y ago
In the absence of infinite money to actively maintain all libraries, there is no alternative.
The core of the problem is that libraries and even the language itself have to make non backwards compatible changes over time. No system can fix this.
- bmitc 3y agoThe alternative is to use a language that wasn't broken to begin with.
- swatcoder 3y ago> no alternative > have to What? People are just making decisions about how they want the language to evolve, how they want to coordinate production-grade releases, and how they approach backwards compatibility in those contexts. Nothing about those decisions is necessitated or even strongly pressured. They're just an artifact of the Python community's particular engineering culture, and it's one that's uncommonly hostile to streamlined distribution or to shelving application code as stable and "done".
- whatever1 3y agoI don't understand your claim that this is a python specific issue. There are C++ libraries that require C++11. As a result if you have an older compiler that does not support C++11 it will just not compile. Same if you try to compile with C++11 compiler a super old project with old libraries. More likely than not it will break. The fact that other languages ignore the problem, it does not make the problem go away. At least python is pragmatist and comes with virtual environments instead of requiring me to set up containers or VMs to deal with package compatibility.