Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > > Brett Cannon wrote: > > Do we have any evidence of this alleged bitrot? I spend a lot of time on the > > comp.lang.python newsgroup and I see no evidence that people using Python > > believe the standard library is rotting from lack of attention. > > IMO, it's a problem mainly with network (especially web) protocols and > file formats. It can take the stdlib a long time to catch up with > external developments due to the long release cycle, so people are > often forced to switch to third party libraries that better track the > latest versions of relevant standards (de facto or otherwise).
I'm not sure how much of a problem this really is. I continually build fairly complicated systems with Python that do a lot of HTTP networking, for instance. It's fairly easy to replace use of the standard library modules with use of Tornado and httplib2, and I wouldn't think of *not* doing that. But the standard modules are there, out-of-the-box, for experimentation and tinkering, and they work in the sense that they pass their module tests. Are those standard modules as "Internet-proof" as some commercially-supported package with an income stream that supports frequent security updates would be? Perhaps not. But maybe that's OK. Another way of doing this would be to "bless" certain third-party modules in some fashion short of incorporation, and provide them with more robust development support, again, "somehow", so that they don't fall by the wayside when their developers move on to something else, but are still able to release on an independent schedule. Bill _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
