Not all of us move fast and break things here, unlike the web dev world.
There was no "move fast and break things" in this python 3
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".
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.
And certainly don't badmouth people who are using the not-deprecated tool as being ok with unstable infra.
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.
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).
Then how many more years do they need to switch to Python3?
How many years does it take companies to switch from COBOL (which still runs billions of lines of 40+ years critical code)?
Could almost really say “how many decades” at this point.
