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, duf...@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 -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
