2016-03-29 22:51 GMT+02:00, Michael Selik
Back at Georgia Tech, my professor [0] once told me that the way to get rich is to invent an index.
2016-04-01 16:42 GMT+02:00, Alexander Walters
On 4/1/2016 09:07, Nick Coghlan wrote: [...]
By contrast, I think Python itself covers too many domains for a common rating system to be feasible - "good for education" is not the same as "good for sysadmin tasks" is not the same as "good for data analysis" is not the same as "good for network service development", etc.
Cheers, Nick. Not that this was the original proposal, but there can be such a thing as a universal 'bad' package, though. So about the only thing that a universal package rating system can do effectively is shame developers. I don't think we want that.
1. There is not only good-bad dimension. beauty-ugly, simple-complex, flat-nested (and others from PEP20) trusted-untrusted is one from others. 2. Art critics are not to shame artists. Constructive criticism could help authors too. It is not benefit only for "customers". One who wants invent index to get rich could probably invent this job (Python critic) too. 3. pypi has number of downloads for day, week and month. If there is public api to data - one could make graphs, trends, etc and public them. If they will be nice then they probably could be included on pypi site too.