4 ms·

> More conservative distributions tread very carefully. Well, yes, that's what conservative means. You're using stable distros, with older versions of Python,

by alex-g 14y ago

> More conservative distributions tread very carefully. Well, yes, that's what conservative means. You're using stable distros, with older versions of Python, and it sounds from your original post like you're not interested in using newer versions right now. So... what's the problem exactly?

gouranga 14y ago
I would rather like to use newer versions but the rate of change since 3.0 was introduced is slightly scary and hard to quantify. I'd rather not try to hit moving targets. Python appears to be a playground for features versus a stable, reliable well tested and well thought out language these days.
- sho_hn 14y ago
  I don't think that's really fair, considering they even had a _moratorium_ on language changes in place for two years: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3003/ http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3003/ And as for the standard lib, a lot of the additions e.g. in 3.3 is simply stuff that's been around and proven for years: virtualenv, mock ... I mean, I respect that you feel that way, but I just don't see the same sort of cause for concern I guess.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  New features != unreliable Python has an extensive set of comparability tests and the system is quite modular. It also follows the maxim that complex systems that work are built from simple systems that work. You don't have to use the new features. You don't even need to use Python3. Sounds more like "Damn kids and their loud rock and roll."
  - gouranga 14y ago
    Not at all. People need stuff that works, not half baked stuff. Fine example here (there are loads more like this): http://bugs.python.org/issue4565 http://bugs.python.org/issue4565
    - hynek 14y ago
      I’m not sure what’s half-baked about a 3 years old ticket for a Python version that has never been declared as usable. (3.2 was the first production-ready Python 3)

by alex-g 14y ago

gouranga 14y ago

I would rather like to use newer versions but the rate of change since 3.0 was introduced is slightly scary and hard to quantify. I'd rather not try to hit moving targets. Python appears to be a playground for features versus a stable, reliable well tested and well thought out language these days.

sho_hn 14y ago
I don't think that's really fair, considering they even had a _moratorium_ on language changes in place for two years: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3003/ http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3003/ And as for the standard lib, a lot of the additions e.g. in 3.3 is simply stuff that's been around and proven for years: virtualenv, mock ... I mean, I respect that you feel that way, but I just don't see the same sort of cause for concern I guess.
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
New features != unreliable Python has an extensive set of comparability tests and the system is quite modular. It also follows the maxim that complex systems that work are built from simple systems that work. You don't have to use the new features. You don't even need to use Python3. Sounds more like "Damn kids and their loud rock and roll."
- gouranga 14y ago
  Not at all. People need stuff that works, not half baked stuff. Fine example here (there are loads more like this): http://bugs.python.org/issue4565 http://bugs.python.org/issue4565
  - hynek 14y ago
    I’m not sure what’s half-baked about a 3 years old ticket for a Python version that has never been declared as usable. (3.2 was the first production-ready Python 3)