[jpeanuts]

While I understand the desire for a unified Python ecosystem as much as anyone - this kind of pettifogging is not going to convince anyone to switch to Py3.

Consider if the authors of the article had used (for example) Ruby - you probably wouldn't ask why they didn't do it in Python3, so why do you do it if they write it in Python2?

[codetrotter]

I think they asked in a respectful manner, so I don’t see anything wrong with their comment really.

Python 2 will be EOLed soon.

https://pythonclock.org/

4 months 25 days 5 hours left until Python 2 is retired. After that point it will no longer be maintained by the Python project.

Of course Linux distros and companies will keep Python 2 running for years to come because of all of the tools that are Python 2 only.

New projects ought to be written in Python 3. However, in this case my guess would be that OP probably used Python 2.7 because macOS ships with Python 2.7 preinstalled.

So if we could, Apple are the ones that we ought to speak to. Convince Apple to ship macOS with Python 3 pre-installed.

[rerx]

The switch from Python 2 to 3 was slowed down tremendously because major libraries did not fully support Python 3 immediately. The question regarding the dependencies was legitimate.

[ViViDboarder]

I agree with your general point, but your example if Ruby is very different. Python 2 is expected to be EOL Jan 1, as far as I know, Ruby is not.

[newaccoutnas]

With respect, if nobody finds the issues in the upstream dependencies and works to make them compatible with Python 3, they won't be supported. That would be a shame for this project and others that use the same upstreams.

I'd have hard time finding support for some Ruby 1.8 upstream dependencies for recent projects, so I don't agree with you.

[40four]

Put Python 2 on the dunzo list!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLp0S3K6mk