Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #95531 > unrolled thread

Re: Bug!

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Bug! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:41 +1000
    Re: Bug! hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com> - 2015-08-21 16:42 -0600
      Re: Bug! Zachary Ware <zachary.ware+pylist@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 18:07 -0500
      Re: Bug! sohcahtoa82@gmail.com - 2015-08-21 16:53 -0700
        Re: Bug! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 11:02 +1000
          Re: Bug! Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 21:37 -0700
            Re: Bug! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 15:16 +1000
          Re: Bug! hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com> - 2015-08-21 23:26 -0600
        Re: Bug! Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> - 2015-08-22 18:08 +0100
        Re: Bug! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 09:06 +1000
        Re: Bug! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 11:35 +1000
        Re: Bug! Simon Ward <simon@bleah.co.uk> - 2015-08-23 02:22 +0100

#95531 — Re: Bug!

On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 5:31 AM, Miguel  Alejandro Fernandez
<alejandrogroso@hotmail.com> wrote:
> hello, python3.5rc1 when trying to install , the installer did not show the
> button to start installing , to click in the middle he started ; after
> installing I thought that everything would work fine but I could never run
> it, telling me ' this is not a valid Win32 application '
>
> *use a computer with WindowsXP

Python 3.5 does not support Windows XP. I suggest installing a
better-supported operating system (or failing that, a better-supported
version of your current OS).

ChrisA

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#95537

On 8/21/2015 1:41 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Python 3.5 does not support Windows XP.

Is there a simple explanation for this ?

Or is it just is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95538

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 5:42 PM, hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 8/21/2015 1:41 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> Python 3.5 does not support Windows XP.
>
>
> Is there a simple explanation for this ?
>
> Or is it just is.

We don't see the need to be burdened by supporting versions of Windows
that are no longer supported by Microsoft in new versions of Python.
Versions of Python whose initial release occurred during the support
period of a particular version of Windows will always support that
version of Windows, though (for example, Python 3.4 will always
support XP, Python 2.7 will always support XP and even Windows 2000).
Python 3.3 dropped support for Windows 2000, Python 3.5 drops support
for XP and Server 2003, and Windows Vista will be unsupported by
Python 3.7.

See also PEP 11.

-- 
Zach

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95539

On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 3:42:36 PM UTC-7, hamilton wrote:
> On 8/21/2015 1:41 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > Python 3.5 does not support Windows XP.
> 
> Is there a simple explanation for this ?
> 
> Or is it just is.

I have no relationship with the Python developers, but I would say that running such an old operating system is simply irresponsible due to security issues and should be discouraged in any way possible.

Windows XP is 14 years old.  In the computing world, that's *ancient*.  It's time to upgrade and join the modern world.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95541

On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 9:53 AM,  <sohcahtoa82@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 3:42:36 PM UTC-7, hamilton wrote:
>> On 8/21/2015 1:41 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> > Python 3.5 does not support Windows XP.
>>
>> Is there a simple explanation for this ?
>>
>> Or is it just is.
>
> I have no relationship with the Python developers, but I would say that running such an old operating system is simply irresponsible due to security issues and should be discouraged in any way possible.
>
> Windows XP is 14 years old.  In the computing world, that's *ancient*.  It's time to upgrade and join the modern world.

The security concerns of XP aren't Python's problem, and Python isn't
in the business of twisting people's arms to make them upgrade just
for the sake of upgrading. However, every new version of Windows
introduces new APIs and features, so maintaining support for an older
version means ignoring all features added since then; conversely,
dropping support for XP means taking advantage of anything that was
added in Vista. That's why the change in support.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95544

On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 6:32:56 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 9:53 AM,  sohcahtoa82 wrote:
> > On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 3:42:36 PM UTC-7, hamilton wrote:
> >> On 8/21/2015 1:41 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >> > Python 3.5 does not support Windows XP.
> >>
> >> Is there a simple explanation for this ?
> >>
> >> Or is it just is.
> >
> > I have no relationship with the Python developers, but I would say that running such an old operating system is simply irresponsible due to security issues and should be discouraged in any way possible.
> >
> > Windows XP is 14 years old.  In the computing world, that's *ancient*.  It's time to upgrade and join the modern world.
> 
> The security concerns of XP aren't Python's problem, and Python isn't
> in the business of twisting people's arms to make them upgrade just
> for the sake of upgrading. However, every new version of Windows
> introduces new APIs and features, so maintaining support for an older
> version means ignoring all features added since then; conversely,
> dropping support for XP means taking advantage of anything that was
> added in Vista. That's why the change in support.

And it can cost a pretty penny: when someone upgrades from XP (say) to 
something modern like Windows 10 it almost certainly requires buying a new machine.

One of the charms of linux used to be (dunno how true today) that it could
run reasonably well on extremely underpowered hardware

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95545

On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> One of the charms of linux used to be (dunno how true today) that it could
> run reasonably well on extremely underpowered hardware

Still true, although it's not so much "Linux is better than Windows"
as "Linux is more modular than Windows, so you can omit the bits you
don't want". If you grab a default Ubuntu install, it'll demand a
certain amount of RAM and CPU and so on; but if you're running it on a
low-end system, you can kick off some of the heaviest parts (usually
the pretty graphics), either manually or by grabbing a dedicated
low-end-system distro like AntiX.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95546

On 8/21/2015 7:02 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 9:53 AM,  <sohcahtoa82@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 3:42:36 PM UTC-7, hamilton wrote:
>>> On 8/21/2015 1:41 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>>> Python 3.5 does not support Windows XP.
>>>
>>> Is there a simple explanation for this ?
>>>
>>> Or is it just is.
>>
>> I have no relationship with the Python developers, but I would say that running such an old operating system is simply irresponsible due to security issues and should be discouraged in any way possible.
>>
>> Windows XP is 14 years old.  In the computing world, that's *ancient*.  It's time to upgrade and join the modern world.
>
> The security concerns of XP aren't Python's problem, and Python isn't
> in the business of twisting people's arms to make them upgrade just
> for the sake of upgrading. However, every new version of Windows
> introduces new APIs and features, so maintaining support for an older
> version means ignoring all features added since then; conversely,
> dropping support for XP means taking advantage of anything that was
> added in Vista. That's why the change in support.
>
> ChrisA
>
Thank You ChrisA, this make the best sense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95563

On 22/08/2015 02:02, Chris Angelico wrote:
> The security concerns of XP aren't Python's problem, and Python isn't
> in the business of twisting people's arms to make them upgrade just
> for the sake of upgrading. However, every new version of Windows
> introduces new APIs and features, so maintaining support for an older
> version means ignoring all features added since then; conversely,
> dropping support for XP means taking advantage of anything that was
> added in Vista. That's why the change in support.

Thanks for saying this, Chris. Just to add, from a Python developer 
perspective: any system -- Microsoft or not, open or not, old or new -- 
which core Python supports, brings a measure of complexity to the 
codebase. #ifdefs, conditional LoadLibrary calls &c. From the point of 
view simply of the maintenance burden, less code is better. Obviously 
there is more to deciding on platform support than code maintenance ...

This isn't some kind of political move by the Python dev team to 
undercut Windows users: it's entirely pragmatic. And using the Windows 
support calendar is a common-sense way of giving ourselves a set of 
cut-off dates.

TJG

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95567

On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 3:08 AM, Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> wrote:
> On 22/08/2015 02:02, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> The security concerns of XP aren't Python's problem, and Python isn't
>> in the business of twisting people's arms to make them upgrade just
>> for the sake of upgrading. However, every new version of Windows
>> introduces new APIs and features, so maintaining support for an older
>> version means ignoring all features added since then; conversely,
>> dropping support for XP means taking advantage of anything that was
>> added in Vista. That's why the change in support.
>
>
> Thanks for saying this, Chris. Just to add, from a Python developer
> perspective: any system -- Microsoft or not, open or not, old or new --
> which core Python supports, brings a measure of complexity to the codebase.
> #ifdefs, conditional LoadLibrary calls &c. From the point of view simply of
> the maintenance burden, less code is better. Obviously there is more to
> deciding on platform support than code maintenance ...
>
> This isn't some kind of political move by the Python dev team to undercut
> Windows users: it's entirely pragmatic. And using the Windows support
> calendar is a common-sense way of giving ourselves a set of cut-off dates.
>

Precisely. Every time you support multiple versions of some
dependency, you have to test your code on all of them, and in the
common case (new features added in newer versions), you have to target
the oldest and weakest version. When you're writing a Python program
that has to run on CPython back as far as 2.4, there's a lot you can't
do... dropping support for everything pre-2.7 lets you improve your
code significantly. Does dropping support for Python 2.4 consist of
"undercutting RHEL users"? Nope. It's that same pragmatism - I want a
cleaner codebase.

CPython 3.4 will continue to run on Windows XP. If you're still using
an old Windows, you just have to keep using an old Python too.
Eventually Python 3.4 will be out of support, but at that point, it's
no different from the OS anyway. There's nothing stopping you from
using an ancient OS, an ancient CPython, and an ancient Python
application, if that's what it requires... I'm not sure what OS people
are running Python 1.5 on, but if anyone complains that it doesn't
install properly on Windows 10, I rather doubt that python.org will
release a patch :)

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95575

On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Simon Ward <simon@bleah.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> On 23 August 2015 00:06:44 BST, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Precisely. Every time you support multiple versions of some
>>dependency, you have to test your code on all of them, and in the
>>common case (new features added in newer versions), you have to target
>>the oldest and weakest version.
>
> Just don't add features to older versions. They're in maintenance or bugfix mode.

That's not what I'm talking about... I'm talking about multiple
versions of a dependency. If I write a Python script, and tell people
"this requires CPython 3.6 running on Linux" because that's what I
run... it's not going to be easy to use. Telling people that it
requires Python 3.4 or newer cuts out a lot of people, requiring 3.3
or better is going to include a lot more. It's a tradeoff between
usability and cleanliness of code.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95579

On 23 August 2015 00:06:44 BST, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
>Precisely. Every time you support multiple versions of some
>dependency, you have to test your code on all of them, and in the
>common case (new features added in newer versions), you have to target
>the oldest and weakest version.

Just don't add features to older versions. They're in maintenance or bugfix mode.

> When you're writing a Python program
>that has to run on CPython back as far as 2.4, there's a lot you can't
>do...

Just deprecate then drop the stuff you don't want to support any more. This is part of the standard software lifecyle to me. If you care about your users that might not be ready to upgrade provide security fixes for the older versions. If you don't care, well I wouldn't want to use your software in production.

> dropping support for everything pre-2.7 lets you improve your
>code significantly. Does dropping support for Python 2.4 consist of
>"undercutting RHEL users"? Nope. It's that same pragmatism - I want a
>cleaner codebase.

RHEL 4 might still be supported (is it? haven't paid attention) but there should be no obligation to provide new features.


Have a development branch or mainline, that doesn't stop you from having "stable" rele
>
>CPython 3.4 will continue to run on Windows XP. If you're still using
>an old Windows, you just have to keep using an old Python too.
>Eventually Python 3.4 will be out of support, but at that point, it's
>no different from the OS anyway. There's nothing stopping you from
>using an ancient OS, an ancient CPython, and an ancient Python
>application, if that's what it requires... I'm not sure what OS people
>are running Python 1.5 on, but if anyone complains that it doesn't
>install properly on Windows 10, I rather doubt that python.org will
>release a patch :)
>
>ChrisA

-- 
Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web