Evolving the Python standard library

http://sayspy.blogspot.com/2009/09/evolving-standard-library.html

by fogus • 17 years ago

26 14 17 years ago

sayspy.blogspot.com

jnoller5• 17 years ago

Yes, yes, yes. I'll be sending out an email to the stdlib-sig later today proposing a logical "breaking out" of the stdlib from "the core". We can offer a "mega pack" download, but there's various (and all good) reasons to offer a split core/stdlib download as well.

Not just downloading though: it has to be broken out in source control. We should have a single, shared stdlib in a logically "split" location for all of the implementations to leverage. It should contain the minimal number of the best batteries.

jnoller5• 17 years ago

Here's the thread: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/stdlib-sig/2009-September/0...

idlewords• 17 years ago

I remember one of the biggest hassles to moving to Python from Perl was figuring out which libraries to use for some common tasks (making an HTTP request, forking a process, parsing XML). There frequently seemed to be one library that was heavily documented but deprecated, another one that had everybody talking but wasn't quite ready, and sometimes a third or fourth of indeterminate status.

After doing some projects in the language, I began to get a feel for how to choose among competing libraries, but it made the transition to the language less fun than it otherwise should have been.

Having a useful, agreed-upon standard library would be a terrific help to developers moving over from other languages.

mattj• 17 years ago

This is stupid. The thing that makes python so good is that it has a rock-solid, extensive standard library. I'm all for separating it internally so it's easier for pypy/jython/ironpython to reuse and contribute, but don't make us rely on the cheeseshop (full of abandonware and broken code- try finding a STABLE, production-ready s3 client lib, for example). The standard library exists as a repo of well designed (mostly) and high quality (especially after 3.0) modules, but it's greatest attribute is that it's maintained as much as the core language.

Without the stdlib, python is just JavaScript with some extra syntax. Imagine using java without the stdlib. It's very much part of the language.

pwmanagerdied• 17 years ago

Particularly with 3.0, it's not rock-solid at all. There are a ton of libraries whose behavior regarding strings vs. bytes is currently unpredictable and undesirable, and several others that should have been deprecated in 2.X and removed befor 3.

I like the standard library, but there's a lot of room for improvement.

garnet74• 17 years ago

Keep the standard library and continue to make improvements == good.

Remove it so users can roam the wild countryside to hunt for the bits that they want == bad.

mgreenbe• 17 years ago

Python is just JS with extra syntax? The languages have very different object and meta-object/overloading models, as well as other divergent features: JavaScript can mutate closures, for example.

I agree, though, that a stdlib should be part of the core language. Not having a serious standard library has hurt the Scheme community a great deal, I think.

jnoller5• 17 years ago

What's being proposed is trimming it of less useful libraries (and ones without maintainers, low test coverage, etc). No one wants it to "just go away".

tvon• 17 years ago

I'd be happy if python just had a package manager.

garnet74• 17 years ago

It's being actively developed right now: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/distribute

Evolving the Python standard library

Related Stories