On 20 June 2000, esr@thyrsus.com said:
> Watch that argument -- it could turn and bite you. What's the justification
> for including, e.g. POP client classes in the standard distribution?
>
> One of Python's most important strengths is the "batteries *are*
> included" richness of the standard environment.
I totally agree. There are two extremes, both completely silly: include
nothing with Python (except string, re, os, and sys -- because Distutils
needs them ;-), and include every useful, working, documented module
under the sun. I don't think anyone would seriously argue for either
approach. (Although you could argue that a completely stripped-down
Python might be useful in certain environments, eg. a hand-held. But I
don't think you'd win that argument.)
And I will be the first to admit that the Distutils still aren't good
enough: in most respects, they're better than MakeMaker (IMHO), but
there's nothing like CPAN.pm or the XEmacs package manager. And I know
from personal experience that, amazing as CPAN.pm is, it's not The
Answer; and others have attested, that XEmacs is pretty damn good but
still not perfect.
But I still don't think PIL should be included in the core, if only
because it's one of the Distutils "test cases". ;-)
Greg
--
Greg Ward - software developer gward@mems-exchange.org
MEMS Exchange / CNRI voice: +1-703-262-5376
Reston, Virginia, USA fax: +1-703-262-5367
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4