> So to recap: You hop into this conversation claiming that you can't upgrade to Python 3 because you're not being paid for it.
No, I can't upgrade to Python3 because there is no upgrade path.
> Someone else tells you that the correct approach is to think of it as being unnecessary to port old software.
Because there's no upgrade path.
Python2 ends at some point in the near future, and if they want to be extended they will need to be rewritten.
> After you double down on your "I'm not working for free!" strawman, I point out that you're not reading what people are saying to you.
And I respond by saying: yes they are actually saying it. Here's an example:
I consider Python 3 a huge benefit for a similar reason: I can avoid or charge $$$ for people still using 2.6
and:
I do hope other language communities have learned from the Python2 Python3 fiasco. Dealing with no new features in a version with millions of lines of code already written, enough syntactical and other issues that require large underlying changes, etc.
and:
I believe the path being suggested is: write new software in Python 3, or at least in a 3-friendly way.
Which really was you saying, don't worry about software that's already been written. It's dead. Write new software instead!
> You triple-down on your assumption and when you finally realize your mistake, you complain about division changing (and all the libraries that don't work, and the performance issue). And when I point out that that's nonsense, you call me "aggressive and bullish".
You have a choice here: You can try to understand that I'm frustrated by my position, and that other people are frustrated by this position, and instead of trying to denigrate my position, try to find an actual solution for it.
Or you can simply wave your hands, claim there's no solution, and watch all the python2 programmers decide between python3 and anything else.
> What I'm getting is you care a lot less about the "problems companies face" than about getting paid.
Listen: You don't have to work for free. Companies that would fail unless you work for free will probably fail anyway. It means they aren't thinking about what they actually need software for.
We have substantial number of C programs that exist for twenty-five years or more, and we barely have insubstantial python programs that can last for more than a couple. If you don't understand how it's not in anyone's best interests to keep rewriting business functions over and over again, then you really shouldn't be in this conversation, because you clearly think this is about something else.