I get what you're saying and I think you're pretty much describing what it will be like. But honestly, I'm kind of looking forward to it. To me it's like maintaining a favorite model train set or something. A labor of love.
(Going forward I'm more likely to use Julia, Haskell or Prolog than Python 3 for new code.)
What do you think it would have happened if python 3 included a python 2 interpreter (as a command line flag or even a library) so that everyone could switch to python 3.
I understand they where almost incompatible as runtimes so it would have doubled size but it would make easier to propagate the diffusion of python 3.
Do you think a project such as Bladders would have been still possible had this happened?
FWIW, I think that if 3 had the ability to run 2 code (on a per-module basis, say) the whole mess would have been avoided.
Honestly, I'm not so much a Python 3 hater, as a lover of stability. To me the idea of Python 2 being stable for the foreseeable future is exciting because it means I can concentrate on improving the tooling (e.g. tools like PySonar and Snakefood and such. I would add MyPy but of course they will be chasing Python 3 now.)
> Do you think a project such as Bladders would have been still possible had this happened?
Maybe... You can run C code from decades ago. That's pretty awesome. I guess it would depend (in this hypothetical) on whether the 3 interpreter was ever going to drop support for 2 code.
(Going forward I'm more likely to use Julia, Haskell or Prolog than Python 3 for new code.)