Yes, Python 3 was initially a risky endeavor, but in the past couple of years it has cemented its position as the true and only version of Python.
On top of it, Python2 works so well and python3 introduces so few advantages that doing an expensive port is just not feasable for many codebases.
And I guess that python is used mostly by smaller companys with constantly lacking manpower and money plays also an important role.
- 2008-2012 Python 3 as a language becoming usable
- 2012-2016 Libraries gaining Python 2 compatibility (and dropping 2.4 and below)
- 2016-2020 Applications porting now that most libraries are compatible.
Anyways, the fiasco is over and Python 3 has emerged as the victor, so there really is no use discussing the issue anymore imo.
What are you referring to? I haven't heard or read any core developers say anything close to 'introducing breaking changes was a mistake in hindsight'.