Python 3 has many new features and fixes. Maybe 5 years ago this was true, but not today.

What is there in 3 that would benefit scientific computing which 2.7 doesn't have? TBH I don't see the value proposition.

For web stuff you have asyncio, and for hackers there is the venv improvements, but what is there for scientific users who have work to get done?

And how many of them can't be backported to 2?

You don't need to freeze the language, but if the alternative is breaking backwards compatibility after all that time...

It's been seven years. Get over it already. That attitude keeps Python a fractured community.

This argument is just as valid as "You've been trying for 7 years. Give up already."

You could've said the same thing about black-and-white TV, AM radio, horse drawn carriages, et al.

And there's still a lot of use for AM radio, for one.

In niche uses yes. But nobody uses it because "it ain't broke," they have a specific purpose on mind and can actually answer when someone asks what that purpose is.

So far I have not heard anything like a real justification for why Py2 is still better

> So far I have not heard anything like a real justification for why Py2 is still better

I think it needs to be the other way around. If you want me to move from something that works to something that you want me to move to, the onus is on you to show what the new thing does better (or would likely do better in the future). For scientific loads the Python3 story is mostly "not worth the trouble".

This comment branch starts with "tools that only support Py2". This ecosystem is what makes Py2 better for many.