Chris,
you seem to imply, that I have compiled said versions without reason and
that the same would be possible on basis of Python 3 - which is simply
not true. Maybe you are not enough acquainted with Qt and belonging
libraries alike PyQtGraph. Maybe you are just not willing to see /
accept these arguments.
By the way, some months ago I started trying to migrate to Python 3 and
gave up in favor of creating said compilation. Compatibility of Python
and its Packages decreased with V3 significantly. A whole lot of minor
and major incompatibilities between your subversions and belonging
packages. This was one reason, why Java took the route to its own death.
With a view to the mid and long term future, this discussion even gives
me cause to ponder about whether it doesn't make more sense to rely more
on C# and WinForms for professional projects from now on. I am fluent in
both too and it always makes sense to bet on the right horse at an early
stage.
But to be honest, I see no reason to discuss that further, you seem to
be quite determined - so be it. Ignore Blythooon. I have no disadvantage
by that, as I would not have an advantage the other way round, so I am
fine with it.
Best Regards
Dominik
On 2021-03-27 04:44, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 2:15 PM <pyt...@blackward.eu> wrote:
No, I am not encouraging, I am just offering the possibility.
Python and its community once was not dogmatic. At least this was my
impression when I started - after all Python originally had been
designed to be multi paradigmatic. This spirit of freedom was one
mayor
reason for Python to grow so fast - from my POV.
But freedom is constituted by freedom of choice.
It might be a good thing to recommend people to switch to Python 3.*,
it
might be a bad idea to FORCE people to do so by taking away the
possibility to install Python 2.7.*; some people tend to react badly
when infantilised.
Why do you install 2.7.18? Isn't it a bad idea to FORCE people onto
that particular version, instead of letting them run 2.7.9 or 2.7.1 if
they choose? Does it infringe on their freedoms by offering only one
version?
If people want a specific version, they can get it. There's no reason
to promote the use of outdated versions.
If I am right, the Python 2.7.* installers still are provided on the
python.org website. So long as this is done, I cannot see a reason not
to list a 'distribution' using Python 2.7.* in said list, right?
You have a pre-1.0 distribution of an end-of-life version of Python
that works on a very specific platform. That's fine. But there's no
reason to have it promoted anywhere.
By the way, there is more, Blythooon offers beyond what I already have
written in the last email. Otherwise please name me another comparable
MINIMAL 'distribution', which is compiled specifically for scientific
FRONTend development? In terms of diversity I also cannot see, why
Blythooon MUST have something special to be listed? Is it not enough,
that it is another one?
Nope, not enough for it to be promoted. The page you linked to
originally is a very short list of only those which are notable enough
to be worth promoting. And from what I'm seeing, yours isn't.
Move to Python 3 and leave the old version behind. It has been a year
since Python 2 received any updates at all, and over a decade since
2.7 was originally released. Isn't it time it was finally permitted to
rest in peace?
ChrisA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
