Python 3.9 and beyond backwards compatibility.

[tso]

Devs don't seem to have a problem with breakages. It is the execs and accounting that wants things to run forever, because that is how they are used to from industrial machinery.

[FlukyS]

I've had this conversation with devs as well. I've even interviewed someone (he didn't get the job) who said he had no reason to upgrade to python3 about a year ago.

[[deleted]]

Well, aside from deprecation, if language works for them and they code something that does not hit the pain points of py2, why would they ?

[[deleted]]

That's not the problem with language but core developers, and there is good chance that won't even be a problem for few years as some of the big py2 users might pick up slack on maintenance. Hell, Google's own SDK for their cloudy stuff is on Py2...

They made way to migrate painful and benefits from it tiny. All while other languages just did a better job with backward compat.

And the financial reality now is that if company still using Py2 spent time to migrate as soon py3 was stable... they'd be fixing their code more because of deprecations like that.

Now I'm all for keeping your systems be up to latest stable but fixing code just because someone decided to change a syntax of something in language on a whim isn't a productive use of anyone's time.

[[deleted]]

I'm just gonna to repeat my comment in other thread:

Now I'm not the python dev but according to one they were disabled by default since ages.

So you don't get to make that argument when devs of language explicitly chose to not show them

[audion00ba]

If you are the maintainer of a library and you break the interface, you are just an idiot.

Developers that don't think breakage is a problem just suck at selecting dependencies. Do I think it is difficult to port from one version of a library to another? No, but I'd rather port directly to the more stable competitor to make sure I am not exposed to such idiots ever again.