>
I did. I did not think I needed an argument to ask you to stop bringing such an incredibly negative attitude to the table.Not argument or not (and as you said, you didn't think you needed one) you don't have the right to tell me to stop bringing my opinion to the table.
Whether you think it's negative or not, it's not your place to conduct the discussion on HN. Just state your case, and let others state their case. I wouldn't even have left all those comments if I didn't have to defend myself, as most as responses to your demands that I "just stop" and your accusations.
>I was referring to Django, to be clear. And whatever you've paid, it's in donations -- that's great! But if you want to see support, you'll need to directly pay people to maintain that support. I believe in fact you yourself said that before, here on HN, about other tech.
I didn't force anybody to provide me support. I didn't even ask anybody for support for me specifically, and I didn't hold a gun to anybody's head on the matter.
I criticized projects dropping support for Python 2.x, and made my case. Criticizing is not the same as demanding.
>This is basically saying "I do not care for python 3 features, therefore Python 2 should continue being supported even longer [because I have an old codebase to maintain]"
Which is a perfectly reasonable argument, only you omitted the part where I said that the majority of Python users seem to be in the same position (and thus such a drop could be bad for Django itself -- if people are forced to migrated an old project, they might as well bite the bullet and try something else entirely, Node for example).
>The argument in a nutshell is that because the transition is hard, the Python team should just give up on the transition and support both. It's an argument I've heard before. The reason it doesn't hold water is because doing so would completely kill the language, for good.
The transition itself might kill the language, it has already taken far too long with meagre results thus far. It's not impressive that "nearly all popular libraries" have been ported to 3, when it's close to 10 years past 3.x and the majority of users are still on 2.
In any case, there are ways to "support both" that don't kill anything, e.g. making a "merged" Python 2/3 hybrid release that runs both 2.x and 3.x codebases, and is the official CPython going forward.
Or supporting 2.x as longer as needed for 60 or 70% of the users to migrate, as opposed to an arbitrary optimistic cutoff date in 2020, set when people still thought 3.x will get quickly adopted.
>now, we're on the final stretch and the remaining complaints are from people in similar situations as you: Large Python 2 codebase to maintain, therefore can't switch, therefore "please give us more time, and by more time I mean just forget Python 3 ever happened and come back"
Sounds perfectly reasonable. If the largest stakeholders (people with actually large Python codebases) can't speak up, then who can? Newbs that started some small greenfield project with 3.x?