[Python-3000] Limitations of "batteries included"

[Paul Moore]

On 26/08/07, Bill Janssen <janssen at parc.com> wrote:
> > On 8/25/07, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> >
> > I believe the only reasonable solution is to promote the use of
> > package managers, and to let go of the "batteries included" philosophy
>
> It's important to realize that most operating systems (Windows, OS X)
> don't really support the use of package managers.
[...]
> Even with package managers, installing an external extension is out of
> bounds for most users.
[...]
> So as soon as you require an install of something, you lose 80% of your
> potential users.

These are very good points, and fit exactly with my experience. For my
personal use, I happily install and use any package that helps. For
deployment, however, I very rarely contemplate relying on anything
other than "the essentials" (to me, that covers Python, pywin32, and
cx_Oracle - they get installed by default on any of our systems).

> Though I agree with some of your other points, those about the
> fast-moving unstable frameworks, and about the packages that depend on
> an external non-Python non-standard resource.

Definitely. I think the whole issue of inclusion in the standard
library is a delicate balance - but one which Python has so far got
just about right. I'd like to see that continue. The improvements in
PyPI, and the rise of setuptools and eggs, are great, but shouldn't in
themselves be a reason to slim down the standard library.

Paul.