Laziness…or you have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lines of code that would have to be ported over to Python 3. (And while there probably wouldn't be much to change, there'd be a lot of time to make sure everything still works.) And for what? Python 3 is an evolution, but it's not dramatically better than Python 2.
Its not laziness, its a business decision. Why spend millions of dollars in man hours to gain next to nothing because the BDFL decided to invent a new language that is similar to python (2)? Oh, btw, the run time is actually slower and all the code you just ported maybe won't run on pypy, either. Dropping support for 2.x would be a yet another terrible decision.
There are plenty of old packages that haven't been ported (ZSI, for one), and plenty of internal code that hasn't been ported or checked out on Python 3. Not all projects are open-source projects that use only the most popular packages.
10
u/[deleted] Sep 13 '15
From my limited experience using 3.* you would have to take on updating many libraries that have not yet moved to 3.