[stdlib-sig] Breaking out the stdlib

[Michael Foord]

M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Frank Wierzbicki wrote:
>   
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Michael Foord <michael at voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
>>     
>>> No-one argues that the standard library should evolve quickly but there do
>>> seem to be those arguing that it should *never* evolve.
>>>       
>> I'll add my voice against the folks who want the stdlib to never
>> evolve.  Java's standard library provides a nice cautionary example.
>>     
>
> I don't think anyone has voiced such an opinion. There are different
> views on what "evolve" should mean and when to apply what actions,
> though.
>
>   
 
 From a recent post in this thread:

"That is, actually, pretty much what I want a stdlib for.  I don't want
it to contain the newest, greatest, and best ways of doing things.  I
want it to contain the things that people are willing to maintain until
hell freezes over, which will largely be things that aren't ever going
to change until hell freezes over."

> Replacing prefectly fine working code just for the fun of it, does
> not count much as argument for evolving the stdlib.
>
>   

Unless you are attacking a complete strawman, which is unhelpful and 
pointless so please refrain, can you point out who is suggesting 
replacing working code "just for the fun of it"?

Michael

-- 
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog