On 12:14 pm, st...@pearwood.info wrote:
Xavier Morel wrote:
Not being too eager to kill APIs is good, but giving rise to this kind
of
living-dead APIs is no better in my opinion, even more so since Python
has
lost one of the few tools it had to manage them (as DeprecationWarning
was
silenced by default). Both choices are harmful to users, but in the
long
run I do think zombie APIs are worse.
I would much rather have my code relying on "zombie" APIs and keep
working, than to have that code suddenly stop working when the zombie
is removed. Working code should stay working. Unless the zombie is
actively harmful, what's the big deal if there is a newer, better way
of doing something? If it works, and if it's fast enough, why force
people to "fix" it?
It is a good thing that code or tutorials from Python 1.5 still
(mostly) work, even when there are newer, better ways of doing
something. I see a lot of newbies, and the frustration they suffer when
they accidentally (carelessly) try following 2.x instructions in
Python3, or vice versa, is great. It's bad enough (probably
unavoidable) that this happens during a major transition like 2 to 3,
without it also happening during minor releases.
Unless there is a good reason to actively remove an API, it should stay
as long as possible. "I don't like this and it should go" is not a good
reason, nor is "but there's a better way you should use". When in
doubt, please don't break people's code.
+1
Jean-Paul
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
