What's missing from python?

Paul Rubin http
Mon Mar 22 16:42:37 CET 2004


Peter Hickman <peter at semantico.com> writes:
> It depends on what you regard as a 'standard library'. For me it is
> the minimum required to use the language in a general sense. The
> smallest subset of all the possible modules. Thus access to the file
> system is a requirement but Encryption, DNS, Database, etc are not.

Python advertises a "batteries included" approach to the library which
means it's supposed to include most of the stuff that users need,
instead of making them download the stuff from random places.  

> Unless the code is perfect it will require maintainance and testing as
> Python grows. As the standard library grows the amount of testing
> grows with it, and it is probably not linear.
> 
> This alone would be a reason to keep the standard library small.

Python aims to be competitive with other languages and implementations
including (e.g.) Java, which come with large libraries.  Unless it
wants to retreat from aiming for the big time, it needs to also have
thorough library coverage, even if that means more work.



More information about the Python-list mailing list