Home Original page

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

C. Titus Brown ctb at msu.edu
Tue Mar 13 04:48:21 CET 2012 
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:42:55AM +0200, Eli Bendersky wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:25, C. Titus Brown <ctb at msu.edu> wrote:
> > I see the point, but as a reasonably knowledgeable Python programmer
> > (intelligent? who knows...) I regularly discover nifty new modules
> > that "replace" stdlib modules. ?It'd be nice to have pointers in the
> > docs, although that runs the risk of having the pointers grow stale,
> > too.
> >
> 
> Exactly. It's not the job of the core developers to keep track of the
> latest and greatest gadgets and to diligently update the docs when
> something new comes out. Note that "the latest and coolest" changes
> frequently, so this may mean different "recommendations" between 3.x.y
> and 3.x.y+1, which is even more confusing.
> 
> Wasn't a PyPI recommendation / voting system discussed a while ago?
> *That* would be much more appropriate than officially endorsing
> specific modules by pointing to them in the standard documentation.

I feel like there's a middle ground where stable, long-term go-to modules could
be mentioned, though.  I don't spend a lot of time browsing PyPI, but I suspect
almost everyone spends a certain amount of time in the Python docs (which is a
testimony to their quality IMO).  So I'm in favor of conservative link-outs
but without any deprecating language.

--titus
-- 
C. Titus Brown, ctb at msu.edu
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list