The Incredible Growth of Python (stackoverflow.blog)

[Chris Angelico]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Ned Batchelder <ned at nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
> On 9/12/17 7:40 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Leam Hall <leamhall at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 09/12/2017 07:27 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Leam Hall <leamhall at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hey Chris,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is an area the Python community can improve on. Even I would
>>>>> encourage
>>>>> someone new to Python and wanting to do webdev to use Python 3.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if someone comes onto the list, or IRC, and says they need to stay on
>>>>> Python 2 then please drop the dozens of e-mails and comments about
>>>>> upgrading. Help the person learn; that makes them happier with Python and
>>>>> when the time comes to switch to Python 3 they probably will.
>>>>
>>>> If you read back in my emails, you may find that I actually wasn't
>>>> telling you to upgrade to Python 3 - just to Python 2.7, which is an
>>>> easy upgrade from 2.6, and gives you the security fixes and other
>>>> improvements that come from using a supported version of the language.
>>>> Is it "hostile" to tell people to upgrade like that? If someone is
>>>> using Python 3.2 today, I'm going to strongly recommend upgrading to
>>>> the latest 3.x. If someone's using Windows 98, I'm not going to say
>>>> "well, here's how to get everything working under Win98", I'm going to
>>>> say "upgrade to a better OS".
>>>>
>>>> If that's hostile, I am not sorry to be hostile. At some point, you
>>>> have to either get onto something supported, or do all the support
>>>> work yourself.
>>>>
>>>> ChrisA
>>>>
>>> Hey Chris; only some folks were overtly hostile.  :)
>>>
>>> Yet look at your answer; "upgrade". For a person working on a server there's
>>> usually no economic choice to do. The OS python must stay in place and the
>>> newly installed upgrade must be personally maintained, updated, and tested
>>> when security patches come out. For one desktop that's not an issue. For
>>> dozens, or hundreds, or thousands, its not likely to happen.
>> Until you get hit by a vulnerability that was patched four years ago,
>> but you didn't get the update. Now your server is down - or, worse,
>> has been compromised. What's the economic cost of that?
>>
>> You might choose to accept that risk, but you have to at least be
>> aware that you're playing with fire. Laziness is not the cheap option
>> in the long run.
>>
>> ChrisA
>
> Leam has done us the favor of explaining how this list feels to people
> coming into it. We should take his point of view seriously.  You are
> still arguing about whether software should be upgraded.  Maybe it
> should be, but it wasn't was the OP was asking about.
>
> The OP probably also isn't saving enough for retirement, and it's good
> advice to save more, but it's not what they were asking about.  How far
> afield from the actual question is it OK to offer unsolicited advice
> before it comes off as hostile? Apparently we crossed the line on this
> question.
>

Okay, I get the picture. Fine. You can stay on a version as old as you
like - but I'm not going to help you with 2.6-specific issues. Fair?

ChrisA