"We also need to bring along the rest of the Python community as we gain those insights and make sure the changes we want to make, and the changes we want them to make, are palatable."
End quote.
Yes, library developers have to keep up with developments in the underlying language as well as changes in usage patterns by the community. That is true for all programming languages.
And as I have pointed out numerous times before, this change is on the wishlist of many libdevs in the python community.
Java is more backwards compatible, so is Common Lisp.
Someone here said that the thread on the Python "discussion" forum was shut down. That does not sound like everyone except for the proponents is supposed to be heard (or is even aware of the discussion).
Even for such stable languages, a library maintainer has to, at the very least, patch security problems as they are discovered.
> That does not sound like everyone except for the proponents is supposed to be heard (or is even aware of the discussion).
There is an official poll among the Python core devs, linked in the article, which shows overwhelming support for the change. Since they are the ones who have to work this out, that's the only discussion about this that is relevant.
Please explain who exactly is "drawn into this"?
If you want to use async, this change doesn't affect your code.
If you want to use multiprocessing, this change doesn't affect your code.
Even if you already use threading, and do it correctly, this change doesn't actually affect your code.
So who is "drawn into this"? And please don't say library developers. a) Having to update libraries to have them remain relevant, is normal procedure, in all languages. b) a lot of the people who want this to change are library devs.