>Oh please. The EOL on python2 has been massively pre announced.
Which is neither here, nor there. Pre-announcing doesn't give any reason or motive (or funding) for porting large codebases. Many businesses stuck with 2.x will fund 2.x maintenance if the core devs don't do it, and port on their own schedule not on whatever was "pre announced".
> Oh please. The EOL on python2 has been massively pre announced.
Nope, not when new versions of software comes out with Python 2 still, (can't do anything about those licences bought) small studios cannot afford moving/rewriting tools in P2 to 3, not a priority, rather keep P2.
Then complain to the companies you license software from for continuing to build on a soft-deprecated platform. Don't complain to developers for ignoring a platform whose deprecation was announced over a decade ago.
And certainly don't badmouth people who are using the not-deprecated tool as being ok with unstable infra.
> Then complain to the companies you license software from for continuing to build on a soft-deprecated platform.
You think we haven't been doing this? We had a representative from one of these vendors come in to discuss their roadmap, they told us straight up that "We still intend to keep using Python 2".
> Don't complain to developers for ignoring a platform whose deprecation was announced over a decade ago.
Yes, because web dev is the hot tech stuff now, nobody wants to work in a boring sector, so they are not willing to change anything, cycle continues.
> And certainly don't badmouth people who are using the not-deprecated tool as being ok with unstable infra.
I read this sentence twice and I still don't understand what you're trying to say, clarify?
> Yes, because web dev is the hot tech stuff now, nobody wants to work in a boring sector, so they are not willing to change anything, cycle continues.
Change what? You're asking for...what exactly? People to provide support for a deprecated platform? That just encourages those companies you're complaining about to continue to use python2 and further splits the ecosystem. No!
> Not all of us move fast and break things here, unlike the web dev world.
I had to roll my eyes at that one. Fine if your industry is accepting the high risk of using deprecated releases for new software, but don't try to act like upgrading from deprecated software is "moving fast and breaking things". This deprecation has been announced for 6 years. Python 3 was released over a decade ago.
This ain't a new JavaScript built tool -- this is a carefully planned end-of-life situation for a very old piece of technology.
Sure, do that. I'm not a Python fanboy, and there were some issues with how the transition was handled. Move to another language if you have the manpower. I think in in this case, since they claim to not even have the manpower to do some relatively straight-forward migrations from Python 2 -> 3 and/or they have some dependencies on Python2, I'm doubtful that's even an option.
I'm just pointing out that it's a risky move to adopt a soon-to-be-deprecated programming language for new projects, given the potential for security issues that won't be patched. It's the kind of ignorant arrogance that has always bugged me about many companies with non-technical management (please note: these words are not directed at user kgrave given that this appears an edict from above at his company, and he's unable to change it).
Not all of us move fast and break things here, unlike the web dev world.