On 7/10/2010 7:05 PM, Tal Einat wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to propose removing IDLE from the standard library. -1 I use it daily. On Windows, it works better in many ways than the awful interactive command window, which I almost never use. I would rather the latter be replaced. > I have been using IDLE since 2002 and have been doing my best to help > maintain and further develop IDLE since 2005. > > In recent years IDLE has received negligible interest and attention from > the Python community. During this time IDLE has slowly gone downhill. I would say that it has not gone uphill. > The documentation and tutorials grow increasingly out of date. > Cross-platform support has degraded with the increasing popularity of > OSX and 64-bit platforms. Does it not work with the 64bit Windows build? > Bugs take months, and sometimes more than a > year, to be solved. The problem here, it seems to me, is that all issues are autoassigned to an inactive person (KBK) who does not really accept them except once a year or so. I do not know whether all other commiter are unwilling to commit IDLE issues, no matter how obvious and trivial, or if they all think they 'belong' to KBK. If and when I get a development setup, learn how to apply patches, and get commit privileges, I would want to be able to work on IDLE issues. > Features that have since become common-place, such > as having a non-intrusive search box instead of a dialog, are obviously > and painfully lacking, making IDLE feel clumsy and out-dated. I do not know what you mean here, so the 'lack' is completely unobvious and non-painful to me. The IDLE search/replace box strikes as being as good as that I have seen with other Windows software. > For these reasons, I think it would be fitting to remove IDLE from the > standard library. IDLE is no longer recommended to beginners, IMO > rightfully so, and this was the main reason for its inclusion in the > standard library. Is there a superiour replacement that you would recommend to be packaged with the Windows distribution? It would have to have a shell replacement also. > Furthermore, if there is little or no interest in > developing and maintaining IDLE, it should be removed to avoid having > buggy and badly supported software in the standard library. For my day to day use of the shell and editor, there are no serious bugs. -- Terry Jan Reedy
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