Home Original page

[Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net
Tue May 21 14:15:54 EDT 2019 
On Tue, 21 May 2019 13:59:56 -0400
Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
> On 5/21/2019 9:01 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> ...
> > Many Python users don't have the privilege of being able to install
> > arbitrary, unvetted packages from PyPI. They get to use only packages
> > from approved vendors, including the stdlib, what they write themselves,
> > and nothing else. Please don't dismiss this part of the Python community
> > just because they don't typically hang around in the same forums we do.  
> ...
> 
> The problem with this argument, taken by itself, it that it would argue 
> for adding to the stdlib 100s or 1000s of modules or packages that would 
> be useful to many more people than the modules proposed to be dropped. 
> That would require multiplying the number of core developers by perhaps 
> 10.  We have thus far decided to not do this.
> 
> We have instead left sumo distributions with vetted (?) additions to 
> other groups.  But as it is, the stdlib is, as far as I last knew, 
> richer than, for instance, the standard C stdlib.
> 
> Given that presence in the stdlib is restricted, what should be 
> included.  Is mere inertia a sufficient reason?  I don't think it should be.

One fundamental thing the stdlib provides is stability.  If you use an
API from the stdlib today, chances are it'll still work in 10 years,
even on the most recent Python version. Good luck relying on that with
most third-party packages.

But if stdlib modules can disappear when we decide they don't get
enough usage, the stability promise disappears as well.

Regards

Antoine.
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list