The fact that there's a huge split in the community over the issue shows just how divisive Python 3 is. That said, 3 > 2 in version number doesn't make it better or more "current" (and I've seen a number of projects where the "latest" version wasn't even the latest - it was often an experimental). Yes, you could do just about everything you need to in Python 3 that you can do in Python 2, except that it can be much more difficult depending on what you're doing.
e.g. this guy -> http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2014/5/12/everything-about-unicode/
I found it's easy enough to add the line:
# -- coding: utf-8 --
to the top of my Python 2 files so I can get UTF-8. That, and Python 2 has the bindings for GTK (which I like to use).
Both versions of the language have their usage, and to each his own. There's no sense in bickering about it.
I do think the split is in use-cases. I've worked in film at both small and very large places. You can get by very easily ignoring things like color management and frame rates when you're doing small, homogenous work. As soon as you need to take it seriously, the only real way to handle these things is to tag and/or convert these things at the perimeter so you can reliably handle things internally in a consistent way, then convert on the way back out. Even knowing this upfront and being highly motivated, it can take companies years to transition with pain in the meantime.
Text handling is the same. The thing is, many people just deal with ascii compatible English so they don't realize this is a problem for other people and aren't motivated to change. The reason both sides can't just do their own thing (i.e. Python2) is because of libraries and shared code makes it miserable for people using other character sets (most of the world or any company growing bigger than a certain size).
Indeed. One has to wonder, then, about the controversial nature of Python breaking backwards compatibility for the sake of improvement. People are down on "Python 2.8" for changing the name, but the fact that there is no standard set-in-stone led to these problems to begin with. People want a reliable standard, so are the authors at fault for breaking that implied standard and carrying the name with them? Should they have changed the name to PythonU? Or do we always defer to the author's right to change both the VM and the implied standard at will? It's a human-party-pleasing problem because the changes obviously hurt some people (those having to rewrite libraries, which may be easy or very hard and time consuming) for the sake of helping others (who would have time-bomb buggy programs in 2). shrug
I found it's easy enough to add the line:
# -- coding: utf-8 --
to the top of my Python 2 files so I can get UTF-8. That, and Python 2 has the bindings for GTK (which I like to use). Both versions of the language have their usage, and to each his own. There's no sense in bickering about it.