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

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