Nailed it. The problem with Python 3 wasn't that it was too radical, it was that it jumped at the chance to introduce backwards-breaking changes for minimal be

Nailed it. The problem with Python 3 wasn't that it was too radical, it was that it jumped at the chance to introduce backwards-breaking changes for minimal benefit. Trying to convince teams to port code to python3 just because it has better unicode is hardly compelling. They should have taken a few more years and made python 3 a target people were drooling to port for. Further, the author's priorities seem to line up exactly with my own thoughts on Python's shortcomings. Async, speed, types, stdlib, repl. If they had spent 5 years working on those things they would be done right now, and Python would be one of the most compelling languages out there. Instead, and I hate to say this, Python feels like it is falling off rather quickly. It certainly has a future as a teaching language, and it will survive as linux glue for a long time, but beyond that I think it will be replaced by other up and coming languages with better discipline and design.