Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?

[Tim Golden]

On 23/10/2013 14:05, Colin J. Williams wrote:
> 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.

Can I assume you're aware of the industrious Christopher Gohlke?

http://www.lfd.uci.edu/~gohlke/pythonlibs/

TJG