[Tutor] Shelve del not reducing file size

[Kent Johnson]

Well, 'carpers' was my word but there is some truth to it. For example 
this recent exchange:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_frm/thread/77285bd20fafbf2b/b0ffd482e925f0c0?hl=en#b0ffd482e925f0c0
which made it into QOTW in Python-URL, inspiring this rejoinder:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_frm/thread/6348bfbb69642a4a/1d7f98c3c82fd64b?hl=en#1d7f98c3c82fd64b

Ultimately it seems to come down to
- Python is open source
- Python developers are largely unpaid volunteers working on what 
interests them
- If you want something to change, you can
-- do it yourself
-- convince someone to volunteer to do it
-- pay someone to do it

So far cleaning up the std lib has not attracted any of these three options.

Kent

Barton David wrote:
> Sadly I can't think of a plan B, hence the frustration! Python, as far
> as I know, is as good as it gets. And I don't have the courage or the
> capability to improve it myself.
> 
> So all I can really do is clasp my hands together and helplessly plead:
> "Won't Somebody, Please, Think of the Children!" 
> 
> (Meaning struggling non-pro users like me, of course)
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, the core language has matured to be elegant and
> terrificly newbie-friendly, but the extended functionality (the standard
> library) absolutely has not. It disappoints me that Guido and many other
> developers *seem* to be more concerned with strategies for revamping the
> former than they are with strategies for improving the latter. If Kay
> Schluehr, Paul Rubin and John Nagle are opposing this trend and being
> dismissed as 'carpers' then I fear Python has lost sight of the
> 'friendliness' it once seemed to aspired to. 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Johnson [mailto:kent37 at tds.net] 
> Sent: 27 July 2007 14:11
> To: Barton David
> Cc: tutor at python.org
> Subject: Re: [Tutor] Shelve del not reducing file size
> 
> If it's any solace, there is a small minority of Python users who agree
> with you. There *are* rough edges in the library modules and the library
> docs. The great majority of Python users seem to find them good enough
> and are pleased and amazed at what you can do with the batteries
> included. A minority find the warts, omissions and inconsistencies to be
> very frustrating, and not because they (the users) are dumb. IIRC some
> prominent carpers on comp.lang.python are Kay Schluehr, Paul Rubin and
> John Nagle.
> 
> I'm curious, what is plan B? Do you have something better than Python to
> try? I guess the above-named people are still with Python because the
> benefits outweigh the warts.
> 
> Kent
> 
> 
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
> may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
> you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
> University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tutor maillist  -  Tutor at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
>