As someone who would like to be working on new, interesting things in 2-3 years rather than bringing old code into conformance with breaking changes, this attitude captures a worrisome trend in development.
On the one hand, it's great that we have platforms that innovate and improve and harden over time, but we're also facing a development culture where more and more time is spent servicing package/platform/language/OS changes that have no material impact on our own otherwise-mature projects.
It's worth being judicious about where breaking changes are applied, right?
We’re not talking about deprecating a feature here, we’re talking about the addition of behaviour that will break existing code, potentially in non-trivial and hard to debug ways, and in ways that could easily introduce security vulnerabilities.
We've done this too many times and we've had enough pain, let's please proceed at a pace where we can worry about delivering our product and not updating formatted strings, thank you.
Did you think this through? What would you treat as a fatal error? How would the compiler know if a particular string is old style code wanting to print some characters between curly braces or new style code wanting to string interpolate a variable?
Right?! Imagine: "We're announcing Python 4. Python 3 was because we handled unicode in a way that turned out to make nearly 0 sense. Python 4 is because you lot can't put your f's in the right place."
Changing something as deeply rooted as the string type?
Python already went through exactly that disaster once before, when they changed the default string type from b””-strings to u””-strings. It took about 20 years for this transition to finally complete.
PHP has also been responsible for the majority of exploited servers and misconfigured applications. Whatever they are doing it, I take it as a strong negative signal.
That's not unreasonable considering that PHP is by far the most popular server-side language. It's not like we have many hackers targeting Erlang instead.
