A couple of months ago I decided to use Python for my (undergraduate) dissertation project. I assumed that the newest version of the language is the one to go with. And everything was fine until a few days ago when I discovered finding a library to draw simple graphs that is compatible with Python 3 requires quite an effort.

Now I have to either take everything back to 2.7 or keep believing that I will finally manage to work it out with 3.

How is that going to kill the "momentum" I received and change my feelings about Python? It's not going to change them. I enjoyed every single moment of coding so far, even those very first ones where I kept inserting curly brackets everywhere. So, if it fits my needs, I am going to use it in future projects as well.

How is that going to change the industry's feelings about Python? Who knows? But I doubt the industry worries about "momentum". If you are using 2.7, keep using it until Python 3 is usable for your. If you are not using Python yet but you want to, do your research beforehand (something I falsely didn't do) and decide what's best.

Now, how long is it going to take for the major libraries/frameworks to be Python 3 compatible, nobody can tell. And it's funny as we are approaching the "3.2" version already.

But, honestly, who cares? Is a number more important than the language itself?

> This is killing Python's momentum in my view.

It is not the job of application developers to keep up a languages "momentum", its the language creator's job. If he underestimated the momentum of the current version and didnt bother to inter-coordinate incompatible language upgrades with his users and introduced a new trademark-diluting version anyway, you cant simply blame the users for not investing time and money in order to "protect the language". They are not obliged to follow whereever he leads, and if he wants to lead without caring about his followers, they might just decide not to follow any more. Who guarantees that he's not going to pull a Python3 again 5 years down the road and then sing the same "not updating is momentum killing" song again?

I think it's pretty unfair to call this situation Guido's fault. Python 3 was developed with a significant amount of feedback from the community, and it was in development for years before being released. At multiple points in the process, Guido listened to feedback and conceded; one instance that comes to mind is Guido wanting to drop lambda, map(), and filter().

No one is obliged to do anything, least of all application developers, and I wasn't talking about them at all. I was wondering about the motivation of library and framework maintainers. It wasn't my perception that the process leading up to Python 3 was anything like the kind of language creator ego trip you describe. It was a longish collective process and it has since been made very clear that further language changes are not in the cards any time soon.

What if, in your statement, you've unwittingly come across the answer? Why wait for Python 2 libraries to port ... maybe there's a hole in the market here for Python 3 libraries to outright replace the Python 2 ones?

It sucks, yes, but it'll move Python 3 forward...