4 ms·
>Requires python 2.7 Why? It's dead, accept it.
by 1ris 13y ago
>Requires python 2.7
Why? It's dead, accept it.
- ihsw 13y agoDead? Python 2.7 seems to be Good Enough(TM) for much of the industry titans that I don't think we'll ever see widespread Python 3.x adoption within the heavy-weights' infrastructure. Python 2.7 is far from dead, and the changeover to Python 3 seems to be similar to Perl5->Perl6 -- or, more to the point, not happening at all.
- chris_mahan 13y agoWindows XP still seems to be Good Enough for the industry titans. (My desktop machine is still XP, due to move to win7 in the next few days, granted, but I'm typing this on XP)
- rch 13y agoNot exactly - I see it happening sporadically based on the expected longevity of the project, more this year than last.
- 1ris 13y agoPython 2.7 is still dead. >Short version: Python 2.x is legacy, Python 3.x is the present and future of the language >Python 3.0 was released in 2008. [6 years ago] The final 2.x version 2.7 release came out in mid-2010 [4 years ago], with a statement of extended support for this end-of-life release. The 2.x branch will see no new major releases after that. 3.x is under active development and has already seen over four years of stable releases, including version 3.3 in 2012. The next release is the upcoming Python 3.4 in early 2014. This means that all recent standard library improvements, for example, are only available by default in Python 3.x. https://wiki.python.org/moin/Python2orPython3 https://wiki.python.org/moin/Python2orPython3 There is still software for DOS around, and DOS is still dead.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 13y agoshit works, yo, and python can only blame itself for so many people (myself included) remaining with 2.7.
- rectangletangle 13y agoExactly 2.x was good enough that it's hard to make something so much better that it compels people to rewrite substantial code-bases.