[coldtea]

>Oh, but you're expressing your thoughts and desires perfectly well though. You want someone else (not you, of course) to maintain Python 2 for you for the princely sum of of £0.00, so that you don't have to do any work on upgrading to Python 3.

That's how it works with programming language communities.

Not everybody is directly involved in maintaining the language, but the whole community has a stake (and a say) in the future of the language.

Furthermore, it's not just the core team that's responsible for the success of the language, but also the users and the companies that adopted it. Without those, Python would be some obscure toy language by a Dutch academic, and he wouldn't have a job in Dropbox etc.

There are lots of people that have been major contributors to Python's success, including large businesses that employed people like Guido, which also have concerns regarding the switch.

[orf]

> That's how it works with programming language communities

Not always, python has a BDFL rather than a steering committee. But nonetheless it's the people who actually maintain the language who drive it forward.

> but the whole community has a stake (and a say) in the future of the language.

Comments like "the core team are repressing me by not updating 2.7" and random people making half-baked 2.8 releases don't help the future of the language.

Look, it's simple. Core team doesn't want to update Python 2.x anymore for a large number of good reasons. For some people (including you I assume) this isn't the decision you wanted.

But this decision was made years ago. 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.

Bitching about non-existent repression on hacker news archives squat.

[coldtea]

>But this decision was made years ago.

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.