Re Windows 95, thanks for the correction, I'll update the
root node. It seems that Windows NT was a rewrite of Windows 3 and that Windows 95 was derived from the Windows 3 code base.
Python 3: I only claimed it was meeting "substantial resistance". Maybe that's unfair, depending on your interpretation of "substantial", but it's certainly meeting some resistance based on random web chatter on the subject. Well, I'm a Python user and I'm resisting it. ;-) My personal opinion is that breaking backward compatibility was unwarranted for a release with relatively modest improvements. Many businesses with large investments in Python 2.x code will resist Python 3 indefinitely because upgrading will prove too risky and/or too expensive.
Update: Even a company as wealthy as Google, as of 2017, are
still heavily using Python 2.
This is hardly surprising. Where is the ROI on spending millions of dollars rewriting millions of lines of already working code,
without adding any customer value, while being almost guaranteed to suffer numerous breakages to critical business systems?
Curiously, I see some of Google's legacy Python 2 systems are being rewritten in Go
perhaps because at least there is some perceived customer value (faster performance) in a Go rewrite.
For smaller less wealthy companies, rewriting million of lines of working Python 2 code in Python 3 could well put them out of business.
Of course, if you don't have much Python 2 code, switching to Python 3 is a no brainer.
Further update: I see Jython is still Python 2 in 2020
and IronPython3 is unfinished.
At least Perl doesn't have to worry about updating Java and CLR versions of the language. :)