Is this the only language that broke backward compatibility?

>>59052809
>Half of the world uses 2.7.x
No

>>59052809
No, it's just another thuesday for C, C++, Perl, PHP, Ruby and many others.
Difference is, with Python 2/3 it was barely worth the cost.

perl6

Lua

>>59052809
Others, like PHP, just maintain backwards compatibility and bloat the language more and more.
Clean cuts are more painful but they heal.
PHP maintains a permanent, ugly crust.

>>59053300
Since most of those languages produce some bytecode, the bloat is barely noticeable and happens only during the first linting/parsing.

>>59052809
They didn't really break backwards compatibility, since 3.0 is more of a new language than a new version. If it were truly a new version, then they wouldn't continue to maintain 2.x well after 3.0 was released.

Pretty much all languages evolve over time to a point that old code needs updating.