the whole 'batteries included' idea

[Larry Bates]

John Salerno wrote:
> Pardon my naivety, you would think maybe I'd understand this by now, but
> I've always kind of wondered about it. I've been curious why one of the
> biggest points used to promote Python is that it has "batteries
> included." True, this is a great feature, but the way it's been used
> seems to suggest that other languages *don't* have this benefit. And
> maybe they don't, in their own way.
> 
> So my question is, what is the difference between Python's 'batteries'
> (standard modules), and C#'s framework? I know nothing of Java, but I
> assume it has its own rich (and confusing) set of classes as well. Is
> there something different about other languages' libraries/frameworks
> that makes Python's different, and worthy of being touted as 'batteries
> included'?
> 
> I hope that question even makes sense! :)

I believe Python is unique in the depth of the standard library when
compared to most languages.  Most require that you purchase or get many
of the "batteries" from somewhere outside the standard distribution.
Things like FTP clients, SMTP clients, webservers, etc. aren't normally
there by default.

-Larry Bates