In article <O3hCq.1112$ci1...@uutiset.elisa.fi>, Antti J Ylikoski <antti.yliko...@tkk.fi> wrote:
> I have in my hands the O'Reilly book by Mark Lutz, Programming > Python, in two versions: the 2nd Edition, which covers Python 2, and > the 4th edition, which covers Python 3. The engineer in me really has to wonder what the 3rd edition might have covered :-) > I would not want to invest such an amount of work and time to an > obsolete language (i. e. Python 2). I think the best that can be said for Python 2 is, "It's not dead yet!". The vast majority of production Python code written today is for 2.x, for x in {5, 6, 7}. The biggest thing that's holding back adoption of 3 is that most of the major packages don't support 3 yet (but I saw an announcement just this morning that django has been ported to 3). I predict that 2012 will be the year of Python-3. I expect we're at the point now that all major packages will either get ported to 3 in the next year or two, or become abandonware. Also, people building new packages will come out with versions for both 2 and 3 if they want their stuff to get widely adopted. > What is the opinion of the wizards here, shall I learm Python 2 or > Python 3? I'm posting this here because I feel that this point is > interesting to other students of Python. The difficult thing here is that you are living on the cusp. If you came back and asked that question in a couple of years, I strongly suspect the answer would be, "Don't bother with 2; 3 is what everybody uses today". But, we're not there quite yet. Learn 2. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list