[Idle-dev] Removing IDLE from the standard library

[Terry Reedy]

On 7/10/2010 7:05 PM, Tal Einat wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to propose removing IDLE from the standard library.

-1 I use it daily. On Windows, it works better in many ways than the 
awful interactive command window, which I almost never use. I would 
rather the latter be replaced.

> I have been using IDLE since 2002 and have been doing my best to help
> maintain and further develop IDLE since 2005.
>
> In recent years IDLE has received negligible interest and attention from
> the Python community. During this time IDLE has slowly gone downhill.

I would say that it has not gone uphill.

> The documentation and tutorials grow increasingly out of date.
> Cross-platform support has degraded with the increasing popularity of
> OSX and 64-bit platforms.

Does it not work with the 64bit Windows build?

> Bugs take months, and sometimes more than a
> year, to be solved.

The problem here, it seems to me, is that all issues are autoassigned to 
an inactive person (KBK) who does not really accept them except once a 
year or so. I do not know whether all other commiter are unwilling to 
commit IDLE issues, no matter how obvious and trivial, or if they all 
think they 'belong' to KBK. If and when I get a development setup, learn 
how to apply patches, and get commit privileges, I would want to be able 
to work on IDLE issues.

 > Features that have since become common-place, such
> as having a non-intrusive search box instead of a dialog, are obviously
> and painfully lacking, making IDLE feel clumsy and out-dated.

I do not know what you mean here, so the 'lack' is completely unobvious 
and non-painful to me. The IDLE search/replace box strikes as being as 
good as that I have seen with other Windows software.

> For these reasons, I think it would be fitting to remove IDLE from the
> standard library. IDLE is no longer recommended to beginners, IMO
> rightfully so, and this was the main reason for its inclusion in the
> standard library.

Is there a superiour replacement that you would recommend to be packaged 
with the Windows distribution? It would have to have a shell replacement 
also.

> Furthermore, if there is little or no interest in
> developing and maintaining IDLE, it should be removed to avoid having
> buggy and badly supported software in the standard library.

For my day to day use of the shell and editor, there are no serious bugs.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy