2 ms·
I'm only sympathetic to a point. If I distributed C++ code to paying customers who wanted to compile it locally, I'd surely take their needs into account. For a
by kstrauser 2y ago
I'm only sympathetic to a point. If I distributed C++ code to paying customers who wanted to compile it locally, I'd surely take their needs into account. For anything I was releasing as FOSS, deal with it. For instance, my nearby server is running Debian 12/Bookworm with GCC 12. According to https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html, that supports nearly all of C++20. If you can't be bothered to upgrade to your system every few years, I'm not going to make more than 0 effort to cater to your ancient compilers.
In Python terms, today I wouldn't break a sweat to manage unsupported Python versions (https://devguide.python.org/versions/ https://devguide.python.org/versions/). If my stuff runs on an old Python 3.8 system, right on! I wouldn't deliberately break it or anything. But if something came along in 3.9 that makes my life more pleasant, I wouldn't hesitate to use it.
I also vehemently disagree with your Python characterization. There are any number of common, well-supported ways to easily install arbitrary versions on your system, including pyenv and uv. I have multiple versions installed on the laptop I'm typing this on. I do zero development inside containers: all my work runs directly on the host. And yet, none of them conflict with each other at all.
- superkuh 2y agoThe idea that you have to have multiple pythons is weird, new, and despite what you say about not breaking a sweat, vastly more complex and time consuming than how python used to work before it became popular. It's broken now and people have grown used to the brokenness, even integrated it into their workflow and come to believe that this is good. To me it sounds like spacebar heating: https://xkcd.com/1172/ https://xkcd.com/1172/