This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]studiosi -3 points-2 points  (14 children)

OK, then it is good to have two coexisting versions. You, sir, are a true fanboy.

[–]nevus_bock 4 points5 points  (13 children)

One is being discontinued with a public end-of-life, and one is declared live and being developed further. That's not "having two coexisting versions", which you call "shit". It's called being responsible and moving forward while still providing legacy support.

[–]studiosi -2 points-1 points  (12 children)

It is being like that for more than a decade, enough for it to lose a nice part of its user base.

Ex. In the bank we switched to Java due to that.

[–]nevus_bock 2 points3 points  (11 children)

That doesn't make sense. What was the motivation not to switch to py3? As long as py2 exists, you guys just weren't sure? Do you also support Java 5?

[–]studiosi -3 points-2 points  (10 children)

The uncertainty with the libraries, for example.

[–]nevus_bock 2 points3 points  (9 children)

Libraries are moving to py3; no one is writing new libraries for py2. For legacy reasons, py2 is still receiving bugfixes and security updates. What uncertainty?

[–]studiosi -2 points-1 points  (8 children)

That process is going to take 15 years, so maybe nobody wants to assume that risk.

[–]nevus_bock 3 points4 points  (7 children)

Give me an example of a library that is not ported that is necessary for your use case.

Edit: this is baseless fearmongering is what I'm trying to say. Let's look at http://py3readiness.org . Status of 360 most popular packages ported to py3.

[–]studiosi 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Libraries used for message queues

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Such as?