[ravar]

Why is this so downvoted? I really missed the days of python 2.7, I spent far less time debugging breaking version changes and spent more time on my actual work.

For security critical work, like web services, it makes more sense to constantly upgrade to the newest version. But for scientific work, which is a huge audience of python users, who often use obscure poorly supported libraries there is a lot of value in a stable foundation.

[acdha]

> I really missed the days of python 2.7, I spent far less time debugging breaking version changes and spent more time on my actual work.

This has been the Python 3 experience for years. If you had lots of previously ignored bugs in your Python 2 around string handling, it took longer but on a clean codebase it was often only a matter of minutes.

[ravar]

And yet just the other day on the python 3.10 migration in arch stuff broke and I wasted a good day hunting the error down. The solution was installing python 3.6, which should hopefully work for a year or two until THAT is left unsupported.

[acdha]

Kind of like how various Python 2 releases broke stuff and required time to fix? It's easy to forget that if it wasn't memorable but, for example, I remember the specific 2.7.9 release for that reason.

[mcdermott]

Agreed, Python 3 seems to have lost the plot.