In article CAF-Rda9-9Vf4QiATJOHc8wo_aQNG++2QmnDKJ3Ucv2o4pTM-xw@mail.gmail.com, Eli Bendersky eliben@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Victor Stinner victor.stinner@gmail.comwrote:
It's maybe not the right place to discuss that, but why is IDLE part of the Python stdlib? Can't we maintain IDLE outside Python? I guess that maintaining it outside the stdlib would allow to develop it faster and be able to upgrade it for old (unmaintained) Python versions. Strongly +1 here. I'd extend it to the whole tkinter and derivatives, but IDLE itself is a worthier goal. In my view, it's been mainly "kept alive" for the past many years and is a much inferior IDE to others, and not a very good editor.
Please, this is definitely not the right place to discuss the issue of IDLE in the stdlib. It has been discussed repeatedly and the conclusion is always that it is an important part of the batteries-included experience. More importantly, PEP 434, is out for review concerning IDLE maintenance and features, is currently out for review. That would be a much more appropriate place to bring up any concerns. (I will be forwarding my comments to the PEP soon, BTW.)
-- Ned Deily, nad@acm.org