FWIW, that PEP @xflywind links to is "draft only" not accepted and has not been updated in over 2 years during which the Python version bumps for all removals have come & gone. It seems basically defunct/rejected by atrophy lest people needlessly worry about their old Py CGIs failing.
That PEP is also very aggressive at removing modules, yet leaves all **_3_** Python stdlib command line arg parsers (`getopt`, `optparse`, and `argparse`). Unlike @Yardanico's observation about @martin's Nim complaint - those are all at the same basic style of attack but with just 3 apis and all in the stdlib, not even 3rd party. I suspect Python had enough py2->py3 back.compat. drama to last a language lifetime. So, "economy/hindsight-perfect library/code/feature factoring" or in general "cleanliness" may be helpful to making a language popular. It surely lowers the learning surface area. It also surely is not a necessary condition. Python is both quite dirty & quite popular in spite of "only one way to do it" (from its Zen/marketing propaganda) being often ignored by its own stdlib, and seems to be actively choosing to "stay dirty" in the small to avoid "dirt in back.incompat". Diversity of priorities over "how clean" is particularly high variability in human populations (see Freud's anal retentive hypotheses) and also quite multi-dimensional (meaning no single, objective scalar metric). If you can, try to keep that priority diversity in mind when criticizing the disorder/dirt of others - not just in programming, but really in life. :-) (This is **_not directed at anyone in particular_** , but general talking around a very general Problem raised.)
