splat == list unpacking

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2322355/proper-name-for-...

He's likely referring to the extended unpacking changes, stuff like

    merged = {**base, **changes}

Which is the equivalent of what previously was

    merged = {k:v for k, v in base.items()}
    merged.update(changes)

I think that he's kind of right about the problem.

In my opinion, Python's primary business value has been that sweet spot it occupies. It's not the most fun, but it's pleasant. It's not the fastest, but it's not too slow. It's not great on resources, but it's not too bad either.

Good people will work with it, and they tend to be the "let's not get creative, let's just get it done" folks that businesses love. Mediocre people do great with it, because it feels much nicer than many of the other things they've worked with and it channels them towards producing better code and being more productive.

Python makes it huge pain-in-the-ass to get weird/creative, and generally frowns upon it, so people tend not to as much. Junior and low-skill contributors can't really get in too much trouble as long as they stick to the program. It's an awesome "just sit the fuck down and do your work" language.

As a language, it's carved out a great space being pleasant, consistent, well-rounded, predictable, etc.. I know there are people on here using it to build their rocket ships. And it can go there too... maybe not as flexible or fun as more extreme alternatives, but it's also less likely to blow up in your face. For those software rocketeers (probably most any SV start-up), updating makes undeniable sense. Python 3 is hands-down better, and they can handle the transition no problem.

But a lot of people don't use Python to build rocket ships. They don't build rocket ships at all. They build delivery trucks and conveyor belts and coffee dispensers. And, for them, the very things that make Python a great choice - a very clean and conservative focus on simplicity and stability - are the very reasons not to switch. There's just not really anything that's been introduced in the last 10 years that is going to make any real difference for their use cases. Whatever trouble they've had with unicode and the other bs has long been lived with. Whatever's missing they've long lived without. And things have been just fine.

Python's killer feature - being a really nice and well-rounded option that works pretty damn good for a large swath of people - is sorta it's undoing here. It's hard to really be that too much more so.

I mean I switched to 3. It's clearly better. But if I was running a Python team that had been effectively just trying to get the job done in 2.7 for over a decade I would have to admit that I wanted to switch for my own sake - I think it would be unlikely to make them that much more happy or productive.

Hell, many people can't even set their same environment back up in a week after loosing their laptop.

> But if I was running a Python team that had been effectively just trying to get the job done in 2.7 for over a decade I would have to admit that I wanted to switch for my own sake - I think it would be unlikely to make them that much more happy or productive.

Part of being a software engineer is keeping your environment up to date. Sure, I could keep using Node 0.10. But I'll get no updates for security or fixes for bugs.

If you're on a team that hasn't updated to a version that's supported, then you're neglecting one of the fundamental ongoing maintenance tasks involved in software engineering. If that's "too hard" to do over the course of a decade, then perhaps there's something wrong with your engineering culture.

Sure, you don't have to do it. But don't expect the rest of the world to continue to support your old setup. If you have to compile Py2.7 from source because RHEL doesn't come with it, that's fair penance for not keeping up with the community. It's just about the most entitled thing in the world to say "I didn't spend the two weeks in ten years time to upgrade to a newer version [using the numerous automated tools] and I'm mad that the world at large isn't making it easy for me to continue to not do anything."

I'll just say this... I still have 2.7 as my base install... for Ansible. Because they haven't switched yet.

Ansible is owned by... Red Hat. They acquired it in late 2015.

Seems like Red Hat - the people in the post that we're talking about that are shoveling folks off 2.7 - has been neglecting one of the fundamental ongoing maintenance tasks involved in software engineering, and perhaps has something wrong with their engineering culture.

Sorry, this shit is just too funny.

And it seems that Red Hat is booting Ansible from the core repos as well (looks like it's in that depreciation notice!), presumably instead of spending the "two weeks" to update it (you might want to go ask the Ansible team why they're too damn lazy to spend that "two weeks", see what they say).

However, unlink Red Hat and Ansible, some organization depend on the softwares in question, and can't just sideline them 'cause the shit they've successfully run on for a decade-plus has lost it's blessing.