RetroSearch Browse

Tue Mar 13 04:25:49 CET 2012 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117521.html

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:22:45AM +0200, Eli Bendersky wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:07, R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com> wrote:
> > I don't like any of the suggested wordings. ?I have no problem with
> > us recommending other modules, but most of the Python libraries are
> > perfectly functional (not "leaky" or some other pejorative), they just
> > aren't as capable as the wiz-bang new stuff that's available on PyPI.
> >
> 
>  +1 to David's comment, and -0 on the proposal as a whole.
> 
> The suggested wordings are simply offensive to those modules & their
> maintainers specifically, and to Python generally.
> 
> Personally, I think an intelligent user should realize that a
> language's standard library won't provide all the latest and shiniest
> gadgets. Rather, it will focus on providing stable tools that have
> withstood the test of time and can serve as a basis for building more
> advanced tools. That intelligent user should also be aware of PyPI
> (and the main Python page makes it prominent enough), so I see no
> reason explicitly pointing to it in the documentation of several
> modules.

I see the point, but as a reasonably knowledgeable Python programmer
(intelligent? who knows...) I regularly discover nifty new modules
that "replace" stdlib modules.  It'd be nice to have pointers in the
docs, although that runs the risk of having the pointers grow stale,
too.

--titus
-- 
C. Titus Brown, ctb at msu.edu

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117521.html below:

[Python-Dev] Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives