Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #94121
| From | Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? |
| References | <moenuj$f11$1@ger.gmane.org> <mailman.709.1437298070.3674.python-list@python.org><55abad41$0$1642$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| Date | 2015-07-19 16:15 +0200 |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.717.1437315345.3674.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
In a message of Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:59:29 +1000, "Steven D'Aprano" writes: >On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 07:27 pm, Laura Creighton wrote: > >> In the tiny corner of industrial automation where I do a lot of work, >> nobody is using 3.0. > >I should hope not, because 3.0 was rubbish and is unsupported :-) > >I expect you mean 3.x in general. indeed. Or should I be saying Python 3000. >Bug for bug compatible back to the 1970s, right? :-) Exactly. >> So there is great hope among industrial users of Python >> that we can get a hold of a 'never going to change any more' version >> of Python, and then code in that 'forever' knowing that a code change >> isn't going to come along and break all our stuff. > >Presumably they like the 2.7 features too much to go back to an even older >version. Because 2.5 or even 1.5 are pretty stable now. > >I'm not kidding about 1.5, a year or two ago there was (so I'm told) a >fellow at PyCon in the US who was still using 1.5. "If it ain't broke, >don't fix it" -- he wasn't concerned about security updates, or new >features, he just needed to keep his legacy applications running. I have 1.5 code out there. Unless something breaks there is no way that I will get permission to ever change it. >I get it, I really do, and so do the core developers. (Well, most of them, >and certainly Guido.) It cannot be said often enough and loudly enough that >if you find yourself in the lucky position where you don't need to care >about security updates, bug fixes or new functionality, there is absolutely >nothing wrong with using an old, unmaintained, stable version forever. Well, Terry asked. In my corner of the world -- well, iterators are cool. Though a ton of my code broke when we got a 'yield' keyword, as I had used that as a function name all over the place ... But aside from that, pretty much nothing post 1.5.2 really made a difference for us. Some bugs in struct got fixed, and that was nice, but, well on the whole we'd like stone cold dead. >-- >Steven Laura
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-19 11:27 +0200
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-19 23:59 +1000
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-19 16:15 +0200
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-19 16:18 +0200
csiph-web