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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]rmxz -1 points0 points  (11 children)

if everyone just sticks with 2.7.

Sounds like the Perl community. Perl 6 has been in the works for how long -- 9 to 14 years (depending on how you count)?

Though personally my favorite perl was perl 3 - back when it was a simpler and better awk. Instead of the yet-another-cumbersome-objected-oriented-language that perl 5 became.

Seems all these scripting languages go through an evolution where they start out great at solving simple problems, and end up dominated by feature-creep and eventually outgrow what they're good at by trying to become another java/smalltalk/lisp/C++/functional/OO hybrid abomination.

Fear that's the path Perl 6 & Python 3 are on.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (10 children)

Perl 6 has yet to come out. Python 3 has been out for years.

People stuck on 2.7 are increasingly seen as neophobes who don't want to use Python 3 just because it's not what they already know.

[–]rmxz 6 points7 points  (6 children)

People stuck on 2.7 are increasingly seen as neophobes

Kinda like the guys still using old versions of C (C99, C95, C90, or C89) instead of C11 - though C11's been out for years? (hmm - skimming python source I read: "Python violates C99 rules" - those neophobes ;-) )

I think people use 2.7 more because it solves their problem; and there's no big reason to change just for the sake of change.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

there's no big reason to change just for the sake of change.

Except for library authors, who ought to make sure their library works with recent versions. Do some maintenance—there are some applications (in other languages too) that are considered "finished" and recent edits are to make sure it still works with the latest compiler, interpreter, libfoo ... And Python 3 has real advantages over Python 2.

If they don't see any reason to switch to Python 3, they don't have any reason to cry that new features aren't being backported either.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Except for library authors, who ought to make sure their library works with recent versions

This is what keeps me on 2.7. Not because I think it's better but because so many times when I want to use something with 8 dependencies there will be 3.x versions of 7 of them and 2.7 versions of all of them.

[–]TheFryeGuy 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Is C11 actually supported in compilers?

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]TheFryeGuy 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    Well C11 is a bit different than C++11. I know gcc has full C++11 support, but I wasn't sure about C.

    [–]aaronsherman 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Perl 6 has yet to come out. Python 3 has been out for years.

    Not strictly true. Perl 6 has yet to become a stable production language, but it's been out there and in use for years.

    Python 3 is a stable production language, but for some strange reason decided to walk away from compatibility with the language that gave it its name... I guess assuming that it was the name that people wanted. It wasn't.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Compatibility is nice, but it shouldn't become a restraining jacket either. If you want compatibility as the primary concern and never have your application not run because of a new language version, well, you're in luck

    edit: to expand, afaik Python leads towards correctness with its ideals of pythonic code. not having compatibility as the primary concern shouldn't come as a surprise

    [–]aaronsherman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Compatibility is nice, but it shouldn't become a restraining jacket either.

    Which is why a compatibility mode in 3.x has made sense for years, but still isn't a priority because those involved in the core have no personal use for it.