The downside addressed by the parent is that an article dated "2012" will be discounted by many potential readers, even if all of the information is still current.
For something where specific versions or dates matter, nothing about the article suggests that you not address it in the "post." If a configuration file changed in April, 2013 then you should write about how it changed and how to deal with the different versions. And if you're writing about something specific to Python 3, you should be specific about that restriction. But I don't see how dating the article as "August 17th, 2013" is going to effectively communicate either of those nuances.
The article date is at best an imperfect proxy for whether the information is current. And the OP and parent are claiming that prominently displaying the date (and other "blogging artifacts") cause potential readers to discount the information more than they should. I don't know whether the argument is universally true, but it's plausible.
For something where specific versions or dates matter, nothing about the article suggests that you not address it in the "post." If a configuration file changed in April, 2013 then you should write about how it changed and how to deal with the different versions. And if you're writing about something specific to Python 3, you should be specific about that restriction. But I don't see how dating the article as "August 17th, 2013" is going to effectively communicate either of those nuances.
The article date is at best an imperfect proxy for whether the information is current. And the OP and parent are claiming that prominently displaying the date (and other "blogging artifacts") cause potential readers to discount the information more than they should. I don't know whether the argument is universally true, but it's plausible.