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

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