If it's any solace, there is a small minority of Python users who agree with you. There *are* rough edges in the library modules and the library docs. The great majority of Python users seem to find them good enough and are pleased and amazed at what you can do with the batteries included. A minority find the warts, omissions and inconsistencies to be very frustrating, and not because they (the users) are dumb. IIRC some prominent carpers on comp.lang.python are Kay Schluehr, Paul Rubin and John Nagle.
I'm curious, what is plan B? Do you have something better than Python to try? I guess the above-named people are still with Python because the benefits outweigh the warts. Kent Barton David wrote: > But the more I explore the standard library and third party modules, the > more I run into trouble: a chaotic library structure that seems to > conceal capabilities rather than promote them, similar modules that > don't work in similar ways, a whole new level of opaque programming > lingo that makes me feel excluded, behaviours that I don't understand, > don't want, and that I can't find documentation to explain, and so on. > > I guess it's not Python's fault: I'm guess I'm just too stupid. But I'm > just getting really disenchanted. Sorry. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kent Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 27 July 2007 13:07 > To: Barton David > Cc: tutor@python.org > Subject: Re: [Tutor] Shelve del not reducing file size > > Barton David wrote: >> *sigh* I'm really going off Python. > > In what way is it Python's fault that the dbm database doesn't reclaim > disk space? > > Kent _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
