So? For one, almost everybody I've read, even if they are OK with Python 3, say that that decision wasn't the best course the core team could have been taken.
Now, given that the decision has already been taken and followed through for 6+ years, should they now stick with it and see it through? It depends. There's no reason some of us should not just say "no" to that.
>Either move to a different language, update to Python 3 (again, you've had years of warning) or pay for a supported 2.7 version. Or just carry on using 2.7, it's supported until 2020.
Or you know, we can do all/either of those things, and still criticize Python 3 and try to get them to change course.
So? For one, almost everybody I've read, even if they are OK with Python 3, say that that decision wasn't the best course the core team could have been taken.
Now, given that the decision has already been taken and followed through for 6+ years, should they now stick with it and see it through? It depends. There's no reason some of us should not just say "no" to that.
There's always this: http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/how-the-sunk-...
>Either move to a different language, update to Python 3 (again, you've had years of warning) or pay for a supported 2.7 version. Or just carry on using 2.7, it's supported until 2020.
Or you know, we can do all/either of those things, and still criticize Python 3 and try to get them to change course.