I look forward to using c99 and Python 2.7 for many years to come. There are more then enough Companies and Devs to keep Python 2 ticking over forever.
What it certainly true is that it will take exponentially more work to keep Python 2 alive. They're not allowed to use the name so that's an instant usage drop-off. And many major third party libraries are dropping support too.
You're probably right though. You'll probably get to use Pytwo (or whatever they call its) for a few more years yet.
ISO C++14 requires C99 library compatibility, ISO C++17 requires C11 library compatibility only when C++ doesn't already offer better alternatives.
For C developers there is clang/gcc integration in Visual Studio.
"Modern C++ Game Development on Microsoft Platforms"
Of course, that would be much less painful than Python 3, because C11 is (a) almost entirely compatible with C99, and (b) not noticeably slower.
It's quite hard to write a C89 program that isn't C99. Basically any Python 2 program that uses 'print' won't be valid Python 3. Even after fixing that, I always find a bunch of string related problems.
In practice I imagine some day some PhD student will take it upon themselves to rewrite a significant chunk of libraries to be python 3 compatible, and then we could move on from there, but I wouldnt want to force anyone to spend the time doing a massive Python 3 rewrite.