> This was the best way to do it. Was it really though? Speaking as somebody who considered learning Python several times over the course of a decade I was ser

> This was the best way to do it. Was it really though? Speaking as somebody who considered learning Python several times over the course of a decade I was seriously put off by the protracted uncertainty around 2 vs 3. There was a long period - years long - where everything that "mattered" seemed to be supported by and available for Python 2 and there was a ton of FUD, along with genuine issues, about incompatibilities with Python 3. When I asked which version I should learn I felt like I couldn't get a straight answer. I never had a strong need to learn Python: I just thought it might be a fun and useful thing to do, because people seemed to like the language. But I wasn't interested in investing time in something that might wind up unsupported in a few years, and because I didn't have any serious need for it, it wasn't worth digging through the morass of misinformation to get to the truth. As an outsider it was extremely unclear to me which version of Python would be actively supported for the long term. 20:20 hindsight says 3 was the future but - and maybe this is just bad mar-comms - back then it seemed like there was a reasonable chance it was either going to be a dead end or exist perpetually in this weird no-mans-land of "not quite ready for prime time". Had I learned it there's a good chance I probably would have used it for something more serious by now. But I didn't, and so I have to disagree: it was done extremely poorly.