On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 13:29, Steven D'Aprano firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:43:04AM -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
PyPI makes getting more algorithms easy.
Can we please stop over-generalising like this? PyPI makes getting more algorithms easy for *SOME* people. (Sorry for shouting, but you just pressed one of my buttons.)
Is shouting necessary to begin with, though? I understand people relying on PyPI more and more can be troublesome for some and a sticking point, but if you know it's a trigger for you then waiting until you didn't feel like shouting seems like a reasonable course of action while still getting your point across.
PyPI might as well not exist for those who cannot, for technical or policy reasons, install addition software beyond the std lib on the computers they use. (I hesitate to say "their computers".)
In many school or corporate networks, installing unapproved software can get you expelled or fired. And getting approval may be effectively impossible, or take months of considerable effort navigating some complex bureaucratic process.
This is not an argument either for or against adding LZ4, I have no opinion either way.
But it is a reminder that "just get it from PyPI" represents an extremely privileged position that not all Python users are capable of taking, and we shouldn't be so blase about abandoning those who can't to future std lib improvements.
We have never really had a discussion about how we want to guide the stdlib going forward (e.g. how much does PyPI influence things, focus/theme, etc.). Maybe we should consider finally having that discussion once the governance model is chosen and before we consider adding a new module as things like people's inability to access PyPI come up pretty consistently (e.g. I know Paul Moore also brings this up regularly).