Indeed. One has to wonder, then, about the controversial nature of Python breaking backwards compatibility for the sake of improvement. People are down on "Pyth

Indeed. One has to wonder, then, about the controversial nature of Python breaking backwards compatibility for the sake of improvement. People are down on "Python 2.8" for changing the name, but the fact that there is no standard set-in-stone led to these problems to begin with. People want a reliable standard, so are the authors at fault for breaking that implied standard and carrying the name with them? Should they have changed the name to PythonU? Or do we always defer to the author's right to change both the VM and the implied standard at will? It's a human-party-pleasing problem because the changes obviously hurt some people (those having to rewrite libraries, which may be easy or very hard and time consuming) for the sake of helping others (who would have time-bomb buggy programs in 2). shrug