As of Python 3.3.0a3, both printf and PEP 3101 [1] string formatting are still available, despite references to a possible deprecation of the '%' operator in th

As of Python 3.3.0a3, both printf and PEP 3101 [1] string formatting are still available, despite references to a possible deprecation of the '%' operator in the documentation [2]. I hope this is one of the areas where the cpython devs can turn a blind eye on the whole there should be preferably only one way to do it way of though. A few other PEP 3101 examples worth mentioning (and their printf equivalents): '{1} {0} and {2} {0}'.format('Wiggin', 'Andrew', 'Valentine') '%s, %s and %s' % tuple('%s Wiggin' % i for i in ('Andrew', 'Valentine')) >>> 'Andrew Wiggin and Valentine Wiggin' '{:<{w}} , {:<{w}} ,'.format('one', 'two', w=10) '%s , %s ,' % ('one'.ljust(10), 'two'.ljust(10)) >>> 'one , two ,' '{:^{w}} , {:^{w}} ,'.format('one', 'two', w=10) '%s , %s ,' % ('one'.center(10), 'two'.center(10) >>> ' one , two ,' # see object.__format__() [4] 'today is: {:%a %b %d}'.format(datetime.now()) 'today is: %s' % datetime.now().strftime('%a %b %d') >>> 'today is: Tue May 08' Imho, they really are quite flexible and allow for more elegant constructs when needed. Calling them 'vastly inferior' is unwarranted, especially since using them is not mandatory in any way. [1] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3101/ http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3101/ [2] http://docs.python.org/release/3.0.1/whatsnew/3.0.html#changes-already-present-in-python-2-6 http://docs.python.org/release/3.0.1/whatsnew/3.0.html#chang... [3] http://docs.python.org/release/3.1.5/library/string.html#format-string-syntax http://docs.python.org/release/3.1.5/library/string.html#for... [4] http://docs.python.org/release/3.1.5/reference/datamodel.html#object.__format__ http://docs.python.org/release/3.1.5/reference/datamodel.htm...