Python 3 put-downs: What's the point?

[Tim Chase]

I think it's the same venting of frustration that caused veteran 
VB6 developers to start calling VB.Net "Visual Fred" -- the 
language was too different and too non-backwards-compatible.

The 2to3 tools are better (partly due to the less drastic 
language changes compared to the Fred'ification of VB) than the 
VB6->Fred conversion tools.  I'd also agree that Py3 comes closer 
to the language ideals that Py2.x aspired to be, but Py2.x was 
held back by the fairly strict moratorium on the introduction of 
backwards incompatible changes.  The language changes also 
introduce frustrations when searching for example code:  what was 
"Python" code examples now may or may not now work in Py3 or Py2 
(and more importantly, may not have a caveat regarding which 
interpreter to use).

Finally, the slow transformation of the vast volume of existing 
Python libraries adds a bit of irritant to the masses.  There was 
some dialog on the Django mailing list a while back about Py3 
transitions, but it's still pretty distant on the roadmap.

I've often wondered if changing the name of the language (such as 
"Adder", "Served", "Dwarf" or "Fawlty" for the Britcom fans in 
the crowd) would have mitigated some of the more vituperative 
slurs on what became Py3, designating a shared legacy without the 
expectation of 100% backwards-compatibility.

-tkc