[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 05:48:20 CET 2012
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 06:43, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Brian Curtin <brian at python.org> wrote:
Downloads don't mean the code is good. Voting is gamed. I really don't think there's a good automated solution to tell us what the high-quality replacement projects are. Sure, these are imperfect metrics. But not having any metrics at all is flawed too. Despite the huge flamewar we had 1-2 years ago about PyPI comments, I think we should follow the lead of the many app stores that pop up on the web -- users will recognize the pattern and will tune their skepticism sensors as needed.
An additional bonus of such a system is that we won't have to maintain a separate Wiki page with "popular" choices. Pointing to the PyPI "rating" page, which can presumably be filtered by tags (i.e. web, scientific, XML, etc.) should be sufficient, given that such a rating page exists.
Eli
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]