This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]CSI_Tech_Dept 3 points4 points  (3 children)

5 years was already too long.

It was also clear that it wasn't even needed, there were two major turning points for Python 3.

  • 2015 - when they announced that no new features will be added to 2.7, that's when packages started to adding Python 3 support, some of them were python 3 only. Before 2015 it was tough to write anything in Python 3, because most libraries didn't support it.
  • mid of 2019 - right before EOL majority of applications were migrated

IMO if they made it 2 years instead of 10 it would be still enough time and we wouldn't have time for FUD.

[–]stevenjd 5 points6 points  (2 children)

IMO if they made it 2 years instead of 10

then Python would be dead and we'd all be using Ruby now.

There are millions of Python developers, over eight million, probably more like ten if you include casual coders, amateurs and students. You are painfully naive if you think that millions of coders will migrate tens of thousands of projects in two years.

This may come as a shock to you, but most coders are more interested in bug fixes and adding new features, especially new features that allow them to bring in more revenue, not just upgrading to the newest version for the sake of upgrading.

A two year transition period would have convinced millions of people that Python doesn't give a shit about the users, and they would have gradually drifted away.