On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, at 04:54, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:52:29 +0000 > Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote: > > [This is getting off-topic, so I'll limit my comments to this one email] > > > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 03:17, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote: > > > We have never really had a discussion about how we want to guide the stdlib going forward (e.g. how much does PyPI influence things, focus/theme, etc.). Maybe we should consider finally having that discussion once the governance model is chosen and before we consider adding a new module as things like people's inability to access PyPI come up pretty consistently (e.g. I know Paul Moore also brings this up regularly). > > > > I'm not sure a formal discussion on this matter will help much - my > > feeling is that most people have relatively fixed views on how they > > would like things to go (large stdlib/batteries included vs external > > modules/PyPI/slim stdlib). The "problem" isn't so much with people > > having different views (as a group, we're pretty good at achieving > > workable compromises in the face of differing views) as it is about > > people forgetting that their experience isn't the only reality, which > > causes unnecessary frustration in discussions. That's more of a people > > problem than a technical one. > > I'd like to point the discussion is asymmetric here. > > On the one hand, people who don't have access to PyPI would _really_ > benefit from a larger stdlib with more batteries included. > > On the other hand, people who have access to PyPI _don't_ benefit from > having a slim stdlib. There's nothing virtuous or advantageous about > having _less_ batteries included. Python doesn't become magically > faster or more powerful by including less in its standard > distribution: the best it does is make the distribution slightly > smaller. > > So there's really one bunch of people arguing for practical benefits, > and another bunch of people arguing for mostly aesthetical or > philosophical reasons. I don't think it's asymmetric. People have raised several practical problems with a large stdlib in this thread. These include: - The evelopment of stdlib modules slows to the rate of the Python release schedule. - stdlib modules become a permanent maintenance burden to CPython core developers. - The blessed status of stdlib modules means that users might use a substandard stdlib modules when a better thirdparty alternative exists.
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