[Python-ideas] Moving development out of the standard library
p.f.moore at gmail.com
Wed Jun 9 15:59:55 CEST 2010
On 9 June 2010 13:40, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 22:13:51 +1000
> Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Make no mistake, something like this would be quite a bit of work, but
>> it would be far from impossible and could go a long way towards fighting
>> the impression that the standard library is the place where modules go
>> to die.
> Isn't that "impression" largely constructed, and propagated by a
> limited number of people who apparently don't like the very idea of a
> "batteries included" stdlib? There has been an amount of anti-stdlib
> activism (including in this thread) that I find both antagonizing and
> unconstructive. Outside of that vocal minority, there doesn't seem to
> be that much criticism against the stdlib.
I agree - I think the "where modules go to die" argument is very
overstated (but sadly, just as a result of repetition, it seems to be
gaining traction :-(). Certainly, stdlib modules evolve at a slower
rate than 3rd party ones in many cases. But they do evolve, as Antoine
points out, and the slower evolution can just as easily be viewed as
What I don't understand is why the "activists" actually care if the
stdlib is big or small. Surely if you don't like the "fat stdlib",
just ignore it? Why inconvenience those of us who find it a benefit?
So can someone clarify (from the point of view of a "thin stdlib"
proponent) - what is the benefit to you, personally (i.e., ignoring
things like "frees up core developer time" - let them speak for
themselves if they feel that is a benefit), of actually removing items
from the stdlib, rather than just ignoring them?
More information about the Python-ideas