Toward Python's future article

GerritM gmuller at
Thu Oct 7 22:42:14 CEST 2004

"daniel narf" <vegeta.z at> schreef in bericht
news:mailman.4516.1097169723.5135.python-list at
> Hi i am sure most of you have read the article of Andrew Kuchling about
> more in the standart library than language newFeatures/tweaking and
probably i
> as many others would like to know what the python hackers/developers think
> this proposal.Maybe this post is out of place but oh well..
In general the article makes a lot of sense to me. I don't have any voting
rights myself, since I have never contributed to the development myself. So
my comments are from the users viewpoint.The strong point of Python is the
combination of a simple, clear, and well-structured language, with a
well-filled toolbox in the standard lib, and of course a high quality
implementation, running out-of-the-box. The standard lib seems to develop
relatively slower than the other elements (language and quality of
implementations). Andrew indicates many examples where the standard lib can
be further improved.

I disagree with one statement: the required involvement of Guido. I do think
that the standard lib also needs a BDFL who takes final decisions based on
good intuition and insight, balancing elegance and pragmatism. A standard
lib without clear concepts becomes a box of Pandorra.

> i am personaly very interested in improving the stdlib which is very messy
> in my opinion right now.
No, it is not very messy. Yes, there is legacy of long time evolution. But
compared to real messy systems the Python standard lib is still very well

regards, Gerrit Muller
Gaudi systems architecting:

Praktijk voor Psychosociale therapie Lia Charité

More information about the Python-list mailing list