# Thoughts on eventual Julia 2.0 transition **URL:** \ **Category:** Internals & Design\ **Tags:** upgrades\ **Created:** [October 1, 2018, 6:34pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/thoughts-on-eventual-julia-2-0-transition/15756 "2018-10-01T18:34:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 3

**Author:** ![StefanKarpinski](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/stefankarpinski/32/24_2.png) [@StefanKarpinski](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/StefanKarpinski)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 7:14pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/thoughts-on-eventual-julia-2-0-transition/15756/3 "2018-10-01T19:14:00Z")

I really think people obsess way too much about the Python 2 to 3 disaster. Obviously, we can’t break things _and_ slow down the language _and_ not give people better language features… I’m not sure why the Python devs thought that would work. In the mean time Ruby had a very successful transition from 1.8 to 2.0, Java and C# have made many major releases, PHP has had a several of major releases, and so on. Julia itself has managed **six** major releases. Here are some of my previous thoughts on the Python 2 to 3 transition: > [@1.0 adoption path?](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/1-0-adoption-path/7922/39): > > The big issue was upgrade deadlock. Instead of making it possible for packages to support both Python 2 and 3 at the same time, the Python devs provided the [2to3 tool](https://docs.python.org/3/library/2to3.html), hoping that the entire ecosystem would upgrade from Python 2 to 3 all at once. But upgrade effort turned out not to be what stymied the transition. Packages still needed to support Python 2 because most of their users were still using it. And since most packages stayed on Python 2, users did as well – if anything they depended on… --- _[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/thoughts-on-eventual-julia-2-0-transition/15756)._