[Python-Dev] Removing IDLE from the standard library

[Tres Seaver]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tal Einat wrote:
>> I would like to propose removing IDLE from the standard library.
>>
>> I have been using IDLE since 2002 and have been doing my best to help
>> maintain and further develop IDLE since 2005.
> 
> I'm surprised by the amount of interest this has raised already. To
> answer a few questions that were raised:
> 
> In recent years I have worked up many patches, both bugfixes and new
> features and improvements. Getting any attention to these was
> non-trivial, and getting patches accepted (or an explanation why they
> are rejected in some cases) almost always took many months, sometimes
> years, and some are still unresolved. It has been very frustrating.
> 
> When I ran into bugs I fixed them and submitted a patch. I have also
> done so for quite a few bugs reported by others. However, there are
> currently several bugs in the tracker which nobody is taking any
> notice of. IIRC most of the recent bugs are related to OSX or 64-bit
> Windows.
> 
> To those who mention that IDLE is "okay" or "not going uphill", my
> grandfather would say "if you aren't running forwards, you are falling
> behind." You should know how IDLE looks to programmers seeing it for
> the first time -- IDLE's quirky and old-fashioned looks and interface
> are a major turnoff for new users. As a result I have stopped
> recommending it to coworkers, despite personally liking IDLE, instead
> recommending the basic command-line or IPython for interactive work,
> and any other IDE or text editor for development.
> 
> I too prefer IDLE to the basic command line, and think that something
> like IDLE is well-suited for learning/teaching Python. I also think an
> interpreter with a nice GUI can be far superior to a text-only
> interpreter. However, I've mostly lost hope for IDLE, and am currently
> hoping that something else takes its place.
> 
> The fact is that for many years little effort has gone into developing
> and maintaining IDLE, and I believe being tucked in a corner of the
> Python codebase is a major reason for this. I really don't see why
> IDLE has to be part of the standard library, what's wrong with IDLE
> being an externally maintained application?
> 
> Yes, IDLE still works (mostly), but us few who continue to use it
> could do so even if it weren't part of the standard library.

I wonder if moving it out of stdlib might actually help improve its
development velocity:  maybe if it were managed via bitbucket, with
user-visible forks to known fixes, etc., it would get "caught up" to
people's expectations.

Perhaps I'm really suggesting that there be an 'idle2' project nn
bitbucket, as a "friendly fork" of the mostly freeze-dried version in
stdlib.



Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver          +1 540-429-0999          tseaver at palladion.com
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkw7JcAACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ73RACfTcPaDXPFlg8EWnBxYj3qfWwg
qswAn3Ws/FvYqLLiYGvgzEpd1sIpWuWJ
=ZlSp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----