Will Python 3.x ever become the actual standard?

[Dan Stromberg]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, <dufriz at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am starting to have doubts as to whether Python 3.x will ever be
> actually adopted by the Python community at large as their standard. Years
> have passed, and a LARGE number of Python programmers has not even bothered
> learning version 3.x. Why am I bothered by this? Because of lot of good
> libraries are still only for version 2.x, and there is no sign of their
> being updated for v3.x. 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.


When 3.x came out, the python-dev folks practically commanded us to wait a
while before diving in.  I think things are mostly going according to plan.

I think some little-used libraries will never get moved over.

We've been seeing that 2to3 and 3to2 aren't really the main way of moving
things to 3.x; instead, we're seeing a lot of code written to run,
unmodified on both 2.x and 3.x.  This was a bit of a surprise, I think.  A
document I wrote about how to do this is at
http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/~dstromberg/Intro-to-Python/

I find the differences between 2.x and 3.x rather small, actually.  If some
people keep chanting "never going to happen", it probably won't - for them.

Personally, I've been coding greenfield projects in 3.x only and liking it,
and I wrote one ~10,000 line project to run on both:
http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/~strombrg/backshift/

HTH
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20131023/a75d9944/attachment.html>