On 29Nov2018 0254, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
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.
My experience is that the first group would benefit from a larger
_standard distribution_, which is not necessarily the same thing as a
larger stdlib.
I'm firmly on the "smaller core, larger distribution" side of things,
where we as the core team take responsibility for the bare minimum
needed to be an effective language and split more functionality out to
individual libraries. We then also prepare/recommend a standard
distribution that bundles many of these libraries by default (Anaconda
style), as well as a minimal one that is a better starting point for
low-footprint systems (Miniconda style) or embedding into other apps.
Cheers,
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
