[wizee]

It seems to be a gross exaggeration to say most Python code from 5 years ago doesn't work on current Python versions. Python 3 was mainstream a decade ago, and almost all code written for Python 3.3 or 3.4 still works on Python 3.13. Maybe some libraries have had breaking changes, but at least for common libraries like Numpy, Scipy, and Matplotlib, most code from a decade ago still works fine.

[kragen]

There's plenty of Python 2 code from 5 years ago, and virtually none of it works on current Python versions. A decade ago virtually all Python code was Python 2 code; in 02014 Python 3 was almost unusable. Perhaps what you mean is that most individual lines of Python code using Numpy and Scipy from ten years ago work fine in current Python versions, but very few complete programs or even library modules do.

[bastardoperator]

They made a new version which is highly indicative of breaking changes if not the entire meaning behind bumping the version. What's the problem? I think it's bold of you to rag on volunteers for a supposed botched upgrade, whatever, but I don't know anyone writing python 2 today?

[kragen]

Plenty of people are writing Python 3 today, too, but because things like this proposal seem reasonable, and things like removing cgitb and asyncore are actually happening, most of them will regret it eventually. Sometimes volunteers screw up, and sometimes they have dysfunctional social dynamics that hurt people.

[throwaway314155]

You're aware that you're several years late to this argument, right?

[kragen]

I agree, it's too late for Python. But it's not too late for people who think the work they're doing has serious intellectual content of lasting value to choose a different language today, so that their work doesn't become unusable five years from now, and it's not too late to keep the same thing from happening to other programming-language ecosystems.