Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?

[Colin J. Williams]

On 23/10/2013 8:35 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 23/10/2013 12:57, dufriz at gmail.com wrote:
>> Years have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not
>> even bothered learning version 3.x.
>
> The changes aren't large enough to worry a Python programmer so
> effectively there's nothing to learn, other than how to run 2to3.
>
>> ...there is no sign of their being updated for v3.x.
>
> Could have fooled me.  The number is growing all the time.  The biggest
> problem is likely (IMHO) to be the sheer size of the code base and
> limitations on manpower.
>
>> I get the impression as if 3.x, despite being better and more advanced
>> than 2.x from the technical point of view, is a bit of a letdown in
>> terms of adoption.
>
> I agree with this technical aspect, other than the disastrous flexible
> string representation, which has been repeatedly shot to pieces by, er,
> one idiot :)  As for adaption we'll get there so please don't do a
> Captain Mainwearing[1] and panic.  People should also be pursuaded by
> watching this from Brett Cannon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebyz66jPyJg
>
> Just my 2 pence worth.
>
> [1] From the extremely popular BBC TV series "Dad's Army" of the late
> 60s and 70s.
>
It would be good if more of the packages were available, for Python 3.3, 
in binary for the Windows user.

I am currently wrestling with Pandas, lxml etc.

Colin W.