yeah and 90% of business code is also written in COBOL and another 90% in MUMPS, but somehow the world continues to work despite the fact that they've been pining for the fjords for decades.
There is obviously a massive jump from COBOL to Python, and small but annoyingly incompatible step from Python 2 to Python 3. I hope you understand the difference. It's not like Python 3 was the best language ever, it's just a variation (and IMO not that great one to justify breaking backwards compatibility) of the same theme. Ask Perl guys how they liked a similar situation.
If I didn't need to use Python, I wouldn't. Now why I have to rewrite my old code to v3 if it works? Why do I have to waste time with such a stupid thing? All my new code is v3, but why is somebody nagging me about v3 all the time when v3 is full of warts and mindblowing conceptual holes as well, and doesn't really address multi-threading (GIL love forever) etc.? Coming from C++/Java to Python world it was like throwing away a lot of powerful stuff in exchange for faster time to write. Didn't expect that would be dragged down by additional time to rewrite because of some half-baked API-breaking changes.
A similar situation to Python 2->3 in Perl is from Perl 5.6 to Perl 5.26 with the difference being that Perl maintains mostly backwards compatible.
If you are talking about Perl 5->6 that is more like going from C++ to D. (With a touch of Haskell+Go mixed in)
For several years we have been considering the two current Perl's as sister languages. Both are being actively developed with a yearly stable release for Perl 5 and a quarterly stable release for Perl 6. (Rakudo Perl 6 is mostly written in Perl 6 or subset language, and is also a newer codebase; so it is easier to change without breaking things.)
You don't have to rewrite it, just like you don't have to rewrite your COBOL or MUMPS or RPG or any of the other all-caps languages.
In another 20-30 years Python may very well be added to that list (though less annoyingly capitalized). No one will have to rewrite their Python into whatever the new thing is then either.
But not re-writing ProgramX into LanguageX+1 is not LanguageX's authors' problem or CompanyX-no-longer-using-LanguageX's problem.
If they called Python 3 e.g. Cobra or Boa Constrictor or even Turbo/rapid/mega Python or similar nonsense, nobody would likely complain as it would clearly distinguish itself from existing ecosystem and all the enthusiasts could jump on the wave, boasting how much better it is, that it comes from the original authors of Python and then go through usual Darwinian selection to see if they prevailed. But breaking compatibility in a major way doesn't make a lot of people happy, when the gains are small, as with v3.
Yes they would. The apocalyptic doomsaying that would have happened if Guido had said "oh hey guys we're going to stop developing python here in a bit" would have been off the fucking charts.
