If 13 years isn't enough warning to migrate your use case, no amount of warning will help you.
At some point you have to stop saying its to hard to migrate.
Anyway, how hard would it have been to have a "from __past__ import old_strings" that could have worked for the first few releases to allow the single biggest issue to be smoothed over universally and then fixed file by file under the Python 3 environment? With that in place a lot of shops could have just migrated on day 1 and then iteratively worked to finish the job rather than delaying for so long.
At the end of the day, they had anywhere from 8 to 12 years to migrate. In the tech world, that's a millennia. Most products and services will give you months when they deprecate or sunset.
And this attitude and lack of empathy ("just use the automated tool, lol") is a big part of why the blasted thing took so long.
Personally I still have a sour taste of the urllib migration. All the imports were moved around for no reasons, completely breaking all usage of urllib and any "import urllib", with no way to fix in sight.
The solution came with six a million years later, adding a hundred alias in six.moves.urllib.somefunction that dispatch to the right place.
There's 0 difference between the states that were putting a call out for COBOL programmers to deal with their disaster of an unemployment system and the professor running some python script from 2003. Their lack of responsible ownership is their own fault.
But that means that any language revision needs to work hard at making the transition easy and incremental. 2to3 was and is laughable; at no point was it a reasonable solution.
It's okay to say "we need maintenance money". But no one has an unlimited budget. People complain about the 2->3 transition because (1) it was extraordinarily steep, (2) was not justified, (3) its huge costs are repeatedly denied.
Python decided instead that their customers were of no value, and all the millions of lines of existing Python shouldn't continue to run, even though it would be trivial for them to continue supporting 2.x syntax along with 3.x. I think it is one of the most insane decisions ever made by a mainstream programming language.
So a systems programming language, 13 years younger than COBOL, or 10 years, given that the work in C started in 1969.
http://cm.bell-labs.co/who/dmr/chist.html
> C came into being in the years 1969-1973, in parallel with the early development of the Unix operating system; the most creative period occurred during 1972. Another spate of changes peaked between 1977 and 1979
But lets make you a favour and consider 1972, it makes C a 48 years old systems programming language, only surpassed by NEWP (1961) as oldest systems programming language still in use in 2021.
Maybe it is about time to start talking about C the same way people talk about COBOL.
My last interaction, which felt similar, and put me off commenting for a while, was with someone who claimed that "most concert pianists and serious competitors have absolutely gigantic hands" then moved the goalposts around so they could be Right.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25174394
I guess I should just let vague claims lie. But, well, when something sounds wrong, it sounds wrong.
And could fit a dictionary definition on the comment to prove my point, but then we would really be moving goal posts by then.
Keeping current with industry is the only way they can stay relevant in the modern world, particularly in IT and related fields where anyone with a computer at home can do the same research as someone at a university.
Oh wait, we pay computing grad students literally 1/10 of their potential salary ($10Ks vs $100Ks). Why could there possibly be a shortage?
-_-
More importantly, it shouldn't be prohibitively expensive to port academic Python code.
It should be no surprise that such a poorly engineered process produces awful results.
But seriously, you're right. Grad students do grunt work, that's how it goes. And if an academic Python2 library is widely-used, porting it is important grunt work.
Surely, no serious researcher would let an important tool rot, right?
What is important to the grad students is to produce research papers and to fulfill their mandatory obligations (teaching, project deliverables). And most grad students, even in CS, are not professional software developers anyway. Good luck convincing capable grad student candidates to join your group to do boring software maintenance for horrible pay and no job security.
What is important to the professors, who decide what the grad students will work on, is again to produce research papers, fulfill their mandatory obligations (teaching, project deliverables) and to continually file for grants. Spending grad student time on porting and maintaining libraries does not help with that. In the worst case your grad student is spending their time maintaining a tool that a competing group's grad students are using to churn out papers, beating you to publications and grants.
What is important for the funding agencies is flashy new research in the current hot topics. I never saw a funding agency that would even consider paying a grad student, let alone a full software engineer salary, to port an academic tool from Python2 to Python3 or do all the other maintenance you need to do on production codebases---nor do most universities even have salary classes and positions for that.
As a result, in the many years I spent in academia, I saw many important research tools rot (both software and large hardware testbeds). The solution is not grad students, but to have fully paid software engineer positions in academia. But realistically that is not going to happen.
Rot is a very big part of what happens to a lot of information.
The low pay is in exchange for the ability to do research, not to be a discount software engineer.
But graduate schooling is still a big opportunity cost, and not to go all Mark Twain, but sometimes that can get in the way of your education.
* Very low pay.
* Good benefits in a nation with poor safety nets.
* Tuition waivers along the lines of $10-100K/year.
* When the Dr. says jump, you ask how high.
If you view education as an investment, it isn't necessarily bad compared to an ordinary job. But it's kind of like a FAANG company; your experience depends on who you report to.