Home Original page

[Python-Dev] Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives

Eli Bendersky eliben at gmail.com
Tue Mar 13 04:22:45 CET 2012 
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:07, R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com> wrote:
> I don't like any of the suggested wordings.  I have no problem with
> us recommending other modules, but most of the Python libraries are
> perfectly functional (not "leaky" or some other pejorative), they just
> aren't as capable as the wiz-bang new stuff that's available on PyPI.
>

 +1 to David's comment, and -0 on the proposal as a whole.

The suggested wordings are simply offensive to those modules & their
maintainers specifically, and to Python generally.

Personally, I think an intelligent user should realize that a
language's standard library won't provide all the latest and shiniest
gadgets. Rather, it will focus on providing stable tools that have
withstood the test of time and can serve as a basis for building more
advanced tools. That intelligent user should also be aware of PyPI
(and the main Python page makes it prominent enough), so I see no
reason explicitly pointing to it in the documentation of several
modules.

Eli
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list