3 ms·

Python 3.6 is from 2016 and 3.13 is from 2024. Similar things happen on most platforms on this timescale, eg on the Java side[1], you'd be going from Java 8 to

Python 3.6 is from 2016 and 3.13 is from 2024. Similar things happen on most platforms on this timescale, eg on the Java side[1], you'd be going from Java 8 to Java 23. Clojure is pretty good even on that timescale though. [1] See eg https://stackoverflow.com/a/50445603 https://stackoverflow.com/a/50445603 up until 2021

skeledrew 2y ago
Yep it's totally understandable, and OK by me as these changes are documented in the release docs and the fix a pip install away.
trallnag 2y ago
I often see people recommending Python as a replacement for Bash scripts (utilizing common Unix tools like grep and awk). I'm pretty sure a script from 2016 will still be working fine now.
- swiftcoder 2y ago
  > I'm pretty sure a bash script from 2016 will still be working fine now. In some environments, yes. A bunch of platforms have started using bash-compatible (but not actually bash) shells like fish to help with startup performance. Apple has upgraded from a truly ancient version of bash to a somewhat-modern one in that time (and then gone all-in on zsh instead). Things change on the scale of a decade.
  - jkaplowitz 2y ago
    And yet, if the script is written to POSIX sh standards and has the #!/bin/sh shebang line, none of that breaks. Yes, of course, things do change incompatibly in a decade, probably including some of the nonstandard platform-specific commands called by the script regardless of which dialect of shell. But people who use a nonstandard shell dialect - however common it might be at the time of writing - should be prepared for that shell to become uncommon, absent by default, installed at a different path, incompatibly changed, or otherwise unusable a decade later to an extent that people writing to the standard do not.
- nuancebydefault 2y ago
  The bash side will still work but the tools called by bash won't. Same goes for python/packages.
- Too 2y ago
  Assuming the script even worked fine in the first place. Usually quite unlikely.
- fulafel 2y ago
  They break more often than Python scripts, from reasons unrelated to bash versions, though.

skeledrew 2y ago

Yep it's totally understandable, and OK by me as these changes are documented in the release docs and the fix a pip install away.

trallnag 2y ago

I often see people recommending Python as a replacement for Bash scripts (utilizing common Unix tools like grep and awk). I'm pretty sure a script from 2016 will still be working fine now.

swiftcoder 2y ago
> I'm pretty sure a bash script from 2016 will still be working fine now. In some environments, yes. A bunch of platforms have started using bash-compatible (but not actually bash) shells like fish to help with startup performance. Apple has upgraded from a truly ancient version of bash to a somewhat-modern one in that time (and then gone all-in on zsh instead). Things change on the scale of a decade.
- jkaplowitz 2y ago
  And yet, if the script is written to POSIX sh standards and has the #!/bin/sh shebang line, none of that breaks. Yes, of course, things do change incompatibly in a decade, probably including some of the nonstandard platform-specific commands called by the script regardless of which dialect of shell. But people who use a nonstandard shell dialect - however common it might be at the time of writing - should be prepared for that shell to become uncommon, absent by default, installed at a different path, incompatibly changed, or otherwise unusable a decade later to an extent that people writing to the standard do not.
nuancebydefault 2y ago
The bash side will still work but the tools called by bash won't. Same goes for python/packages.
Too 2y ago
Assuming the script even worked fine in the first place. Usually quite unlikely.
fulafel 2y ago
They break more often than Python scripts, from reasons unrelated to bash versions, though.