Modules for inclusion in standard library?

Rocco Moretti roccomoretti at
Fri Jul 1 16:43:58 CEST 2005

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Rocco Moretti <roccomoretti at> writes:
>>Except that (please correct me if I'm wrong) there is somewhat of a
>>policy for not including interface code for third party programs which
>>are not part of the operating system. (I.e. the modules in the
>>standard libary should all be usable for anyone with a default OS +
>>Python install.)
> I've never heard of Python having such a policy and I don't understand
> how such a stupid policy could be considered compatible with a
> proclaimed "batteries included" philosophy.  Why would Python
> advocates want to make Python deliberately uncompetitive with PHP,
> Java, and other languages that do include database modules?

Well, since there seems to be an outpouring of disgust at my statement, 
and no official confirmation/rejection, it's probably a figment of my 
prematurely failing mind.

However, if there was such a policy, it would not be unequivocally 
"stupid." First off, there is a bit of flexibility in what is considered 
part of the OS. E.g, Linux may properly refer to just the kernel, but 
rarely is just the kernel installed. Various utilities and programs 
might be considered part of the OS because they are ubiquitously 
installed, or are included with the Python distribution itself (as Tk is 
with windows Python).

For those programs which aren't ubiquitously installed, or even for ones 
that are, but require significant configuration, it is reasonable to 
expect that if someone has the ability and goes to the effort of 
locating, obtaining, installing, and configuring a third party program, 
they can just as easily obtain and install the python module, especially 
as it's usually as easy as "python install".

At any rate, I'm not advocating such a policy, I'm just saying it can 
make a bit of sense if you look at it from a certain angle.

More information about the Python-list mailing list