Chris, Since you misunderstood, my statement was that making an incompatible set of changes to create Python 3 in the first place was a decision made by some and perhaps not one that thrilled others who already had an embedded base of programs or ones in the pipeline that would need much work to become comparable.
And, of course, users of a program who continued to use python 2, also have to find a way to ... But if the goal was to deprecate python 2 and in some sense phase it out, it is perhaps not working well for some. Frankly, issuing so many updates like 2.7 and including backporting of new features has helped make it possible to delay any upgrade. And, yes, I was KIDDING about python 4. I am simply suggesting that there may well be a time that another shift happens that may require another effort to get people on board a new and perhaps incompatible setup. I have seen things like that happen in multiple phases including phases where the new tools are not an upgrade, but brand new. An example might be if accompany decided to switch to another existing language because they want better error detection and faster execution or new features that may take forever to arrive in what they are using or that supply various services by humans to help them. The discussion though was about a specific OP asking if they can fix their problem. One solution being suggested is to fix a deeper problem and simply make their code work with a recent version of python 3. But another solution could be to step backward to a version of python 2 that still has numpy support, or as was suggested, find out what other modules they are using are interfering with the program being satisfied with the last version of numpy being used and perhaps find a way to get ... In the long run, though, continuing with python 2 will likely cause ever more such headaches if you want the latest and greatest of things like numpy. -----Original Message----- From: Python-list <python-list-bounces+avi.e.gross=gmail....@python.org> On Behalf Of Chris Angelico via Python-list Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 2:00 PM To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: Couldn't install numpy on Python 2.7 On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 03:41, AVI GROSS via Python-list <python-list@python.org> wrote: > > Change is hard even when it may be necessary. > > The argument often is about whether some things are necessary or not. > > Python made a decision but clearly not a unanimous one. What decision? To not release any new versions of Python 2? That isn't actually the OP's problem here - the Python interpreter runs just fine. But there's no numpy build for the OP's hardware and Python 2.7. So if you want to complain about Python 2.7 being dead, all you have to do is go through all of the popular packages and build binaries for all modern computers. If that sounds easy, go ahead and do it; if it sounds hard, realise that open source is not a democracy, and you can't demand that other people do more and more and more unpaid work just because you can't be bothered upgrading your code. > My current PC was not upgradable because of the new hardware requirement > Microsoft decided was needed for Windows 11. Yes, and that's a good reason to switch to Linux for the older computer. > I mention this in the context of examples of why even people who are fairly > knowledgeable do not feel much need to fix what does not feel broken. It doesn't feel broken, right up until it does. The OP has discovered that it *IS* broken. Whining that it doesn't "feel broken" is nonsense when it is, in fact, not working. > When is Python 4 coming? Is this just another content-free whine, or are you actually curious about the planned future of Python? If the latter, there is **PLENTY** of information out there and I don't need to repeat it here. Please don't FUD. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
