There are alternative python implementations like pypy, and they haven't expressed an intent to drop python 2.7 support. Only CPython 2.7 will then become an insecure interpreter.
1) porting millions (possibily billions) of lines of working Python 2.x code to Python 3
2) keeping the Python 2.7.x interpreter in deep maintenance mode?
This idea that you can force people to move to Python 3 keeps coming up and is misguided, IMHO. There are two proper solutions to this issue:
1) make it easier to port from 2.x to 3.x. We are still making progress. Python 3.5 includes %-style formatting for byte strings. Allowing 'u' as a prefix for strings was another example. Practicality beats purity.
2) make 3.x a more compelling platform for new development. The amount of goodies in 3.0 was pretty underwhelming. I certainly wasn't very excited about moving to it. Async IO is a neat feature. Keep them coming.
> Frankly, if these "carrots" haven't convinced you yet, then I'll wager you're not really the sort of person who is persuaded by carrots.
As someone that uses Python as a C replacement for one-off-scripts that work with binary objects and pure ASCII, Unicode is not a carrot. Unicode will never be a carrot. If anything, Unicode keeps me away.
If I was developing web apps, GUI programs, or data processing libraries, sure. These would all be carrots. But I'm not. The simplicity of Python 2 is my carrot.
> Python 3 does have carrots, and I want them.
You have them. But you seem to be more interested in taking away my carrots, so you don't have to worry about them any more. That's arrogance.