[Migrating the discussion from https://bugs.python.org/issue44768.] PEP 20 says:
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
There are two ways to create a simple named type to store data: collections.namedtuple and dataclasses.dataclass. I propose deprecating namedtuple. As far as the interface is concerned, the namedtuple is almost completely equivalent to a frozen dataclass - with some iterability syntactic sugar thrown in. I don't think there are use cases for namedtuple that would not be trivial to rewrite with dataclasses. As far as the implementation is concerned, the namedtuple is faster. If efficiency is a concern, why do we make our users decide? We can choose the most efficient one on the library's end. C++ does something similar with bool vectors - the library has a special case for where it would be more optimal to use a different data structure underneath. TL;DR: If dataclass is so good, why keep namedtuple around?