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.com>wrote:
> > 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.)