aleax at aleax.it
Wed Dec 12 08:00:32 EST 2001
On Tuesday 11 December 2001 19:23, Skip Montanaro wrote:
> >> CPAN is marvelous. The way the Perl and Python communities
> >> operate, it fills a niche perfectly in the Perl world, but I think
> >> would be a bit of a solution looking for a problem in the Python
> >> world.
> Alex> If it encourages more reuse of code in module A by the author
> of Alex> module B, I think it would be a VERY good influence "in the
> Python Alex> world". Why *shouldn't* the useful 3rd-party modules we use
> be Alex> free to rely on other useful 3rd-party modules yet?!
> Python authors are free to rely on any modules they like, third-party or
> otherwise. That they don't suggests to me that there's generally fairly
> little need to do that, at least for widely used packages.
To me, it suggests something different: that authors are duplicating
functionality or doing without it rather than reusing, say, mx.DateTime or
other packages offering low-level, reusable functionality -- because nobody
wants their distributed packages to be harder to install and use, and
therefore less frequently used, by requiring dependencies on others without
a cpan-ish infrastructure in place.
We'll only know after 2-3 years that a Cpan-ish infrastructure becomes
working (if ever): if at that point the dependencies remain as low as
they're today, then you were right, and encouraging reuse is not among the
advantages. I'm ready to bet a good lunch at Bologna's best restaurant,
wine included, that dependencies will become much more common, i.e., that
reuse will indeed have been encouraged.
More information about the Python-list