Whether it's technically better or not is usually not in question. It's whether it's <i>compellingly</i> better to the point of outweighing the migration cost. For most of the community it still seems the answer is no.
Here is the video of this talk (40 min.), for those who don't like trying to decipher slides: <a href="http://pyvideo.org/video/1730/python-33-trust-me-its-better-than-27" rel="nofollow">http://pyvideo.org/video/1730/python-33-trust-me-its-better-...</a>
Don't need your word on that. It's pretty generally accepted that it is a better language. It's that relative to what existed it is a new language, not an upgrade. It is incompatible with the old one and most all that has been written for it. Most who are invested already can't and won't go there. Most who are coming into it choose to maximize their options over language nicety. It's all just too problematic.<p>It was dishonest to call it Python.
Can somebody explain function annotations for me?<p><pre><code> spam = None
bacon = 42
def monty(a:spam, b:bacon) -> "different":
pass
</code></pre>
What's the point of this? It also seems like super ugly syntax to me, not pythonic. It looks like Ruby! Yuck.
I'm sure it is. Still doesn't address reasons I can't migrate to 3.3, though (those being CentOS6 defaults, lack of packages, cost/benefit ratio too high for migrating).
Interesting read. Note the "Google Confidential and Proprietary" at the bottom of most of the slides. I wonder if the author just forgot to remove the notice when the slides were made public.