On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:36:51AM -0500, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > 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.
That's not a bug, that's a feature :-) Of course that's a concern for rapidly changing libraries, but they won't be considered for the stdlib because they are rapidly changing. > - stdlib modules become a permanent maintenance burden to CPython core > developers. That's a concern, of course. Every proposed library needs to convince that the potential benefit outweighs the potential costs. On the other hand mature, stable software can survive with little or no maintenance for a very long time. The burden is not necessarily high. > - The blessed status of stdlib modules means that users might use a > substandard stdlib modules when a better thirdparty alternative > exists. Or they might re-invent the wheel and write something worse than either. I don't think it is productive to try to guess what users will do and protect them from making the "wrong" choice. Wrong choice according to whose cost-benefit analysis? -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
