Hacker News Reader

Comment by bandrami | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand: are you saying package authors are going to retroactively remove Python 2 support from existing versions? Why on earth would they do that?

Scheme that I wrote in the 1980s still runs (and is running today in commercial systems). I have so little patience at this point for this "higher version = better" nonsense.

View on HN

And what happens when security issues are inevitably discovered in the libraries that are not updated anymore? Sure it's probably OK if you write things that never interface with a network.

Yes, no doubt there's going to be a crippling security vulnerability in this linear algebra library I use. Come on, you don't really believe that, do you?

I hope you don't use cryptography then, or networking, or image/file manipulation, or do anything with untrusted user input.

If you're only doing algebra on an air gapped computer then why do you even worry? Programming languages and tools will evolve but nobody is forcing you to. Keep a local copy of what you need and be happy. Just don't assume any new libraries you might need will support your stack forever.

Still nowhere near as worrying as the business risk inherent in writing on a moving platform.

Even if you are using Linear Algebra, older versions will not be optimized for newer architectures and instruction sets. This is a problem.

If they're not calling my own ATLAS then they aren't "optimized" in any real sense to begin with.

Will you backport security fixes and other significant bugs yourself?

I don't have do that for my 20 year old Perl code or 30 year old Scheme code. Is the bare-bones Python interpreter really that much more full of vulnerabilities?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com