Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Because there already is jq-go and jq-python. One of them is called jq in linux the other is called jq in MacOS. They are not compatible and you find out you're using the other one after 6 hours of screaming at the computer.


sort by: page size:

Chances are higher that python is installed than jq, other than that can't think of any

I don’t actually believe my last Linux install came with a system Python. And as a Python developer I always end up using some tool or another to manage installations of multiple Python versions anyway. Furthermore jq just works as a classic command-line tool.

Because, it is installed on Macs, as I said. I don't want to have to teach people how to install python 3, when they already have python 2, which is fine.

Also, redhat had promised support for a while yet, and I expect spoke to keep it working until they replace with Python 3 (or remove python altogether?)


There aren't "several" free Python interpreters. PyPy is still in an early stage and Jython still doesn't have a stable version supporting Python 2.7.

Golang has two different implementations (6/8g and gccgo), one of which part of the GNU project, so it's not particularly behind.


I use Ubuntu and it's the exact same thing for me, so I don't think it's MacOS-specific. To be honest, the whole versioning quagmire is the main reason why I don't use Python as one of my main languages, but just as an outsider like you. I like the language but I hate wasting my time with that kind of thing. Say what you will about Java, but you can just slap a jar file into a folder and it will work with the latest version, with zero drama.

Python has really poor support for compiled extensions. I know this sounds weird to say, given that they are used everywhere, but this is the number one pain point in Python. It’s really awkward to say, develop on Mac and deploy on Linux.

If for no other reason, because Python.

It's an aesthetic thing mainly, and a bit silly I'm sure, but dammit, I find it unsettling to have my Python 3 stuff running, and then the legacy Python 2, simply for the sake of supervisord.

Likewise, I don't need any Python on my Go-server, please.


I blame in part, that the default install for OS's like Ubuntu and Mac is Python 2.7. If you are starting python development, and want to support more systems, and you know the default is 2.7, then that's what you will target.

After trying to get Pylons+PythonLDAP work on MacOS X I am slowly giving up on this OS as a platform for development. Yes it can be done and it's not THAT hard, but why? For coders Linux just works - everything takes seconds as opposed to minutes. Plus you get a nicer font rendering.

Sorry for the rant. It's just frustrating: I had high expectations for it.


I don't see the connection between the 2. I'm pretty sure MacOS only ships with Python 2...

because it's not the unix way and the unix way has a LOT of value.

because not all the tools you use in your system can import your python/similar file. Your deploy pipeline could involve 10 languages running under multiple os's / versions

or to put it another way... because the whole world doesn't run in your favorite programming language.


Python brought this on itself by having no respect for compatibility between versions.

There's really no such thing as the Python language, only "Python 2.2", "Python 2.4", "Python 3". If you want to run Python scripts, you need to have three or four different Python runtimes installed, and that's asking a lot of both the distros and of users who need to keep everything straight, and probably even hack the #! at the beginning of scripts so that they work correctly.


Good thing Python is cross platform. If they needed a special OS X version, it would be Botox.

macOS comes with python already.

I have multiple Python versions on both my Macbook M1 and my Linux laptop, with several dozen venvs. I honestly don't see why others are having so many issues.

Probably bad documentation/tutorials.


You are comparing apples and oranges, obviously. Perhaps some people are just unconsciously too enamored with apples.

OP's problem was not configuring default Python version as in your second link. Your first link is about some IBM stuff, and IBM is proprietary, so no comments there.

Neither was OP's problem about setting up Python on an old version of the Mac OS.

In any case, on old RHEL, you can just do something like this: https://www.2daygeek.com/install-python-3-on-centos-6/

Installing Python on Linux is much easier than you're trying to say.

For the the love of apples.


> Every solution that I know of on Linux requires you to build Python on the machine

Unless you need a Python that's not supported by your Linux distribution, you can just use what's available.

On macOS, MacPorts provides compiled versions for 3.2 all the way to 3.13, as well as 2.6 and 2.7. Right now, I have 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, and a 3.13 development build. The fact it's not Linux (or x86) might cause some frustration.


Running a python script is hard if you're a dev but not a python dev. I got into all varieties of dependency hell on macOS last time I tried to stand up a simple python project I git cloned.

So you think that the major reason people aren't upgrading is that Python 2 ships by default with Linux/MacOSX?
next

Legal | privacy