Yeah I see your point. To me it's all about trade-offs. A year from now Py3 will have a larger community than whatever replaces Py2. So, investing time to port my code to Py3 was worth it.
> In sum, the very fact that py2 is now stable and unchanging is a killer feature (IMO) that differentiates it from py3!
This is a good point, but I disagree. As long as they make future py3 versions backwards compatible, it doesn't affect me if they keep changing py3. To me, it's more important that the world will be operating on py3 as opposed to py2; this is the killer feature of py3.
> A year from now Py3 will have a larger community than whatever replaces Py2.
> the world will be operating on py3 as opposed to py2
You're right, but like I said, for new stuff I'm using Haskell or Prolog or something, not Python {2,3}.
I don't want to advance Python 2 --well, by adding and improving libraries and tooling I do, but not because I plan to make new stuff in py2, rather to make maintenance cheaper-- I just want to prevent it from dying. I'm really only interested in maintenance. Otherwise I would just contribute to Tauthon, but they're modifying the interpreter/language whereas I just want to make the existing thing more solid.
> In sum, the very fact that py2 is now stable and unchanging is a killer feature (IMO) that differentiates it from py3!
This is a good point, but I disagree. As long as they make future py3 versions backwards compatible, it doesn't affect me if they keep changing py3. To me, it's more important that the world will be operating on py3 as opposed to py2; this is the killer feature of py3.