The first versions of python 3 were indeed, not suitable for serious work. Python 3 started to be usable from 3.3, interesting from 3.4, comfortable from 3.5, and objectively way better than 2.7 from 3.6.

It's not a surprise, as most softwares need iterations to get get good. Python 2.7 has not started as the amazing tool it is now, and as I started my career with 2.4, you remember some funny stuff.

This is why Python 2.7 was kept around for 13 years after Python 3 first came out.

Now, 3.6 came out in 2016. It solves many issues 2.7 had, and add tons of goodies. It's very ergonomic, can be installed easily. It's a great software.

It's 2020, let's enjoy the goodness of Python 3.

But this is exactly why people keep piling on about python 3, as an "upgrade" it was worse than what tried to replace for 8 years.

Sure.

And now it has been better for the last 5 years, and does solve the problems it intended to solve.

No one disputes that today's Python 3 is better that today's Python 2, especially for new projects. (A point can be made that Python 2 now is perfectly frozen in time and so 100% stable, but most people do not care that much)

The only thing this means is that the botched upgrade did not end up killing Python; it says nothing about whether it was done badly or not.

(I have nothing against python, I just believe it is important to understand why and how what happened happened to avoid similar errors in the future)