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

Andrey Petrov shazow at gmail.com
Tue Mar 13 06:48:04 CET 2012

Dear authors of Python's standard library: Please accept my deepest apologies. We didn't mean for the messaging to come off as unappreciative for you work, and I am very sorry for that!

Without the aforementioned urllib/httplib/etc I would have never made it as far as to build my own libraries which have suited my needs better than the foundations that originally allowed me to get off the ground. I am very grateful for all of those responsible for building the Python standard library and I appreciate your continued efforts.

Some specific replies:

@Senthil: I originally asked Guido for guidance on improving the standard library and perhaps including some of my favourite projects, but he pointed out that in a couple of years we might end up again in the same position as before but with one extra library people will complain about for being obsoleted yet remains impossible to deprecate.

I agreed with Guido that embracing and even encouraging users to use the rapidly-evolving community-built packages alongside the tried-and-true standard library is the best move here.

@Terry: I don't know who 'darkprokoba' is. Unfortunately 'Andrey Petrov' is a very common name. I go under the handle 'shazow' but I haven't participated in core Python discussions until today.

I did not suggest for Python to endorse a specific module, even if it is my own. In fact, I generally oppose doing this as I feel that when Django was announced as the blessed 'winner' of the Python MVC frameworks was a harmful event to all other competing frameworks at the time.

My suggestion is to inform the users when there are other potentially better suited alternatives available from the community PyPI and to educate them how to find these alternatives.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list