This sounds like a fork. Nothing need stop someone from forking and maintaining CPython 2.x. Open source is a do-ocracy.
But I doubt it'd be worth it. Python 3 is getting great traction and is a fundamentally better language.
But I doubt it'd be worth it. Python 3 is getting great traction and is a fundamentally better language.
Python 3 is already a fork.
And others are bickering for the opposite opinion, so?
Did someone die and gave you authority on what others should think about Python 2 vs 3 transition?
>It is very hard not to notice your comments if one frequents this site.
I guess tolerating the presence of a counter opinion is hard. That said, it's a open discussion, and the comments are not directed at you in any way. Maybe skip them if they upset you?
The problem is that Python 2 cannot evolve freely alongside Python 3, because even if someone wants to maintain it and keep releasing versions, the Python Software Foundation won't let them use the name Python (there was a post some weeks ago about someone who actually tried). So there is no free competition between 2 and 3. 2 has been basically killed by a decision from above.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no Python 3 hater. In fact, I have some projects in Python 3 and I would leave Python 2 if I could. But I, like many people, have to code stuff that has dependencies on Python 2, and the way they have handled the update bothers us for no good reason. In fact, the whole schism fiasco is making me use less Python and more Java, where my stone-age code still runs, lately.
The previous version is being sunsetted, as is common for legacy software. By the time 2.7 is EOL'd, it will have enjoyed a decade of active development and maintenance. That's just one version of Python.
If there were a compelling enough argument for a fork, it would happen and a new name would be chosen. But alas, it makes very little sense for the wider world.
It's not difficult to write software that works with Python 2 and 3. It's just becoming less and less worth it, as evident by announcements like this Django 2.0 one. The scales have tipped towards Python 3.
That's how trademarks are supposed to work; they must go after anyone using without permission or they lose it.
People are complaining about Python 3 being named Python because some code breaks under it. That would be hell.
Some things that are very useful are backported to 2, but others are just too much work.
That's why if you want to make a fork you're free to do so, but you need to make a different name. If it's something people desire it will be used, you can't just ride on the popularity of the name. If your fork has different name and is not popular, it means that there was not much interest in it, period.
Some of successful forks:
openOffice -> LibreOffice
MySQL -> MariaDB
ZFS -> OpenZFS