I didn't downvote you - in fact, I think the link is a great one. But if I had to guess at a way to improve your comment, it would be to provide more context for the link you provided. (it's also not really "prior" reading - it's useful as context in general.)

"I liked Eevee's blog post from three days ago, which rebutted some of Zed Shaw's complaints about python 3, and provides useful context for the currently-linked note"

> EDIT: Care to explain the downvotes?

This is HN. You don't get explanations. Just downvotes. The good news is that's all karma is good for. Build it up so you can burn it down.

> Required prior reading

I've not used python in years, I've read this post and the original one and still don't understand why python 3 is so terrible and is inevitably destined to fail.

I see just a few changes, nothing comparable to what happened for example with the Swift language.

The Swift ecosystem has never been half as big as Python's was when version 3 released.

Open source sometimes is a wandering caravan, following a rain cloud of shiny new ideas through a dessert. If the crowd would stay, and the cloud would move on- then the legacy-supporters and the innovators part way, and the community is gone.