(original) (raw)

Le Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:38:41 +0100,

Georg Brandl <g.brandl@gmx.net> a �crit :

\> Am 21.03.2013 19:13, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
\> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 19:57:54 -0700
\> > Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger@gmail.com> wrote:
\> >>
\> >> On Mar 20, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org>
\> >> wrote:
\> >>
\> >> > Right. �Ultimately, I think IDLE should be a separate project
\> >> > entirely, but I guess there's push back against that too.
\> >>
\> >> The most important feature of IDLE is that it ships with the
\> >> standard library. Everyone who clicks on the Windows MSI on the
\> >> python.org webpage automatically has IDLE. � That is why I
\> >> frequently teach Python with IDLE.
\> >>
\> >> If this thread results in IDLE being ripped out of the standard
\> >> distribution, then I would likely never use it again.
\> >
\> > Which says a lot about its usefulness, if the only reason you use
\> > it is that it's bundled with the standard distribution.
\>
\> Just like a lot of the stdlib, it \*gets\* a lot of usefulness from
\> being a battery. �But just because there are better/more
\> comprehensive/prettier replacements out there is not reason enough to
\> remove standard libraries.

That's a good point. I guess it's difficult for me to think of IDLE as
an actual library.