The language vs. the environment

[Skip Montanaro]

    Raymond> "Skip Montanaro" <skip at pobox.com> wrote ...

    >> There has been a huge amount of recent PEP activity related to
    >> further enhancements to the language.  I think in general that if
    >> more of this energy was directed at the overall environment (library,
    >> support tools, installers, documentation, etc) we'd be better off in
    >> the long run.

    Raymond> I certainly agree that effort needs to be put into the library,
    Raymond> etc.

    Raymond> However, I would like to defend the PEP writers guild on a few
    Raymond> points:

    ...

    Raymond> 1.  Writing a PEP is a disciplined activity that involves
    Raymond>     completely thinking our design choices, rallying public
    Raymond>     opinion, collecting all points of view for and against, and
    Raymond>     documenting all of that information in a single, version
    Raymond>     controlled, standard format document in a public place for
    Raymond>     everyone to study, ridicule, or on extremely rare
    Raymond>     occassions, adopt.

    Raymond>     In other words, PEP writing is contributing to science and
    Raymond>     is not a wasted effort even if the idea never gets adopted.

No defense needed.  We need PEPs related to the environment also, however.
I think some (most? all?) the blood, sweat, and tears poured into recent
PEPs related to what amount to relatively minor language design issues could
have more profitably been devoted to PEPs related to environment issues.  If
the energy expended on just PEPs related to loop counters had been directed
at cataloging/module distribution ideas, we'd probably have a pretty
complete PEP with a fair amount of buy-in from the community by now, and
maybe one or more implemented trial systems by now.

Skip