[stdlib-sig] Breaking out the stdlib
orestis at orestis.gr
Mon Sep 14 19:22:27 CEST 2009
On Sep 14, 2009, at 8:07 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
> M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> I don't really understand how breaking something as useful as
>> the stdlib into smaller pieces would help with anything.
>> The main purpose of a library is that you have an *integrated* set
>> of modules that are known and tested to work together.
>> The stdlib has gone a long way in trying to achieve that and it's
>> getting better at it with every release.
> The particular motivation is to make it easier for other
> implementations to reuse the standard library. It was something
> discussed (with the maintainers of some of these implementations) at
> the Python Language Summit.
I'd also like to point out the psychological ramifications of making
the stdlib and optional component (even if most users will actually
download the python-full bundle).
Right now when looking for a library to perform some task, the first
place anyone (at least, newcomers) looks is the stdlib. If there's
something there, then most people will stop looking. This is good
because python should come with batteries included. However, a lot of
people will then tend to think "stdlib is sacred" and will never
evaluate the better solutions that are out there.
If the python core devs split out the stdlib into an optional
download, they are making a statement - that is, the stdlib is just a
set of components that mostly work together, nothing more, nothing
less. No one should be compelled to use them just because they
originate from python-core. Hopefully both outside and inside packages
will be judged on merit, and a set of de facto standard packages will
be crowdsourced over time.
Of course, making that statement without a simple way of finding,
installing and uninstalling packages is dangerous, but as said before,
other people are trying to solve that.
> stdlib-sig mailing list
> stdlib-sig at python.org
More information about the stdlib-sig