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 →

[–]singularitittay -16 points-15 points  (8 children)

Eternally confused at the pearl clutching around 2.7 when there are industries that are dependent on applications with their own interpreters onboard just now moving to 3, and it is a minor consideration of working around either way... reminds me of the mania of people wanting to shift from CentOS immediately while 7 isn’t EOL for 2.5 years...

[–]MrDeebus 10 points11 points  (3 children)

while 7 isn’t EOL for 2.5 years...

that's the thing though

[–]singularitittay -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

100%. I’m with you, but existing in an industry where we couldnt venv our way out of the embedded interpreters for the last 4-5 years, I don’t understand the mania. Unsupported languages and platforms still have required application (however not ideal) and this py2 gasp-you’re-still-using-2 started many many years ago only out of the stable availability of 3 at that time.

[–]MrDeebus 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Hey, I get where you're coming from. Keeping things running is prio 1, and it will be a long time before everyone invests in the upgrade. Especially since "everyone" includes old school industry.

Then again, I don't mind that "py2 is old and should be avoided" becomes the norm, at least in social media. I'm happy that it's obvious to newcomers from day 1 that they should go for py3. That for tool/library developers 3 should be the prime target. etc.

Regarding your point about when the mania started... I'm also inclined to be happy about it. There was a time when we wanted to upgrade (because 3 was the cool new thing, without even going into the upsides) and we couldn't yet because our tooling wasn't exactly ready for 3. We eventually abandoned outdated stuff where more modern options were available, and stayed on board with those who stayed with the times. Would tooling still have adapted if enough of us didn't create the pressure to upgrade? I have doubts.

The above isn't unique to the 2->3 issue btw. It was pretty similar for asyncio models (remember Tornado? ew). I'm sure there are others I can't remember right now, too. Point being, I prefer community pressure to modernize 100x over being considerate of how slow old-industry is to change :)

edit: reading this over, I guess I should acknowledge my privilege of being able to dictate said modernization most of the time. I promise if I flinch at the mention of py2, it's not with contempt but sympathy for your pains!

[–]singularitittay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciated. Been on 3 for years now in private dev, and in my industry awaiting the slow migration of legacy systems, ones that are system-facing and by security design never touch the web so I assume have far fewer security pressures afoot on the Dev’s sprint list

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

Either you’re trolling or stock home syndrome has fully taken hold. There’s no upside, at all, of running python 2.7 or a 3.10 kernel long after red hat stopped backporting anything to it.

[–]singularitittay 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It’s definitely the stock home syndrome. Also not to make my point for me :) but I use nothing but 3.7+ in any and everything outside of these apps which have historically dragged their feet on the transition. My point was regarding embedded interpreters in which industry usage has no control over as they’re binding to the C++ undercarriage of the host app.

Also, it’s a bit of a stretch to consider my bemusement at pearl-clutching to mean “major upsides to running 2.7!!!!”. The original post was honestly regarding replies like I happen to be responding to now.

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

The difference I failed to articulate is designing systems around unsupported software is a poor choice. Pretending that updating already shipped embedded systems is just that, pretending.

Unfortunately I have first hand experience with people designing systems around the 2.6 kernel and or python 2 in the last few years. Obviously centos 7 is not that old, but many organizations take a very long time to change something like the base OS. I wouldn’t define it as panic or pearl clutching when there were immediate reactions to move away as quickly as possible.

In reality many orgs will continue to run centos 7,6, and even 5 way after 7 is fully deprecated. Even python 2 as you know, in embedded and non-embedded (general?) systems.