[Python-Dev] IDLE in the stdlib
python-dev at masklinn.net
Wed Mar 20 21:59:58 CET 2013
On 2013-03-20, at 21:14 , Eli Bendersky wrote:
>>> Agreed that the "sync into stdlib" think should not happen, or should at
>>>> best be a temporary measure until we can remove idle from the source
>>>> tarball (maybe at the 3.4 release, otherwise at 3.5).
>>> Right. Ultimately, I think IDLE should be a separate project entirely,
>> but I
>>> guess there's push back against that too.
>> The problem with it is, well, that it's a separate project so unless it
>> is still packaged in (in which case it's not quite separate project,
>> just a separate source tree) it's got to be downloaded and installed
>> That would be a blow to educators, but also Windows users: while the CLI
>> works very nicely in unices, that's not the case with the win32 console
>> which is as best as I can describe it a complete turd, making IDLE a
>> very nice proposition there (I never use IDLE on Linux or OSX, but do
>> all the time in Windows). It also provides a rather capable (and in many
>> case sufficient) code editor for a platform which lacks any form of
>> native text editor allowing sane edition of code.
>> Installing the Python windows packages and having everything "work" (in
>> the sense that you can immediately start writing and running python
>> code) is — I think — a pretty big feature.
> Oh, and another thing. If a Windows user wants a good Python shell, IDLE
> should be his last choice. There's Spyder, there's IPython, there's
> probably a bunch of others I'm not aware of.
Sure, there are plenty of tools for the experienced python developer
with reasons to invest time in a windows development setup, but IDLE
provides an acceptable low-cost and low-investment base which is
*there*: it does not require spending a day downloading, trying out and
getting familiar with a dozen different Python IDEs, it's simple and
for the most part it works.
I view it as an mg, not an emacs, if you see what I mean.
More information about the Python-Dev