Toward Python's future article

[GerritM]

"daniel narf" <vegeta.z at gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:mailman.4516.1097169723.5135.python-list at python.org...
>
> Hi i am sure most of you have read the article of Andrew Kuchling about
focusing
> more in the standart library than language newFeatures/tweaking and
probably i
> as many others would like to know what the python hackers/developers think
about
> this proposal.Maybe this post is out of place but oh well..
>
In general the article makes a lot of sense to me. I don't have any voting
rights myself, since I have never contributed to the development myself. So
my comments are from the users viewpoint.The strong point of Python is the
combination of a simple, clear, and well-structured language, with a
well-filled toolbox in the standard lib, and of course a high quality
implementation, running out-of-the-box. The standard lib seems to develop
relatively slower than the other elements (language and quality of
implementations). Andrew indicates many examples where the standard lib can
be further improved.

I disagree with one statement: the required involvement of Guido. I do think
that the standard lib also needs a BDFL who takes final decisions based on
good intuition and insight, balancing elegance and pragmatism. A standard
lib without clear concepts becomes a box of Pandorra.

> i am personaly very interested in improving the stdlib which is very messy
> in my opinion right now.
>
No, it is not very messy. Yes, there is legacy of long time evolution. But
compared to real messy systems the Python standard lib is still very well
structured

regards, Gerrit Muller
--
Gaudi systems architecting:
<http://www.extra.research.philips.com/natlab/sysarch/>

Praktijk voor Psychosociale therapie Lia Charité
 <www.liacharite.nl>