The Python Standard Library - Where Modules Go To Die
1–10 of 75 posts
Re: The Python Standard Library - Where Modules Go To Die
#2This has kind of happened in Ruby, too.
Fortunately, Ruby gems are super easy to install and the standard library got some much-needed spring cleaning in 1.9.
Python could use the same. There have been many times where I've wanted to do some simple task that would be made easier with an external library (like Requests) but I'm not going to bother dealing with the Python module install pain for a one-off task.
Re: The Python Standard Library - Where Modules Go To Die
#3This happens in every language. I dont think it's that big of a deal.
In all honesty, you could continue to maintain a package outside of stdlib, and just require a newer version (which gets installed via the standard packaging tools). This type of behavior isn't well defined in Python, but it's not unrealistic to think it could happen.
Re: The Python Standard Library - Where Modules Go To Die
#4This has kind of happened in Ruby, too. Fortunately, Ruby gems are super easy to install and the standard library got some much-needed spring cleaning in 1.9. Python could use the same. There have been many times where I've wanted to do some simple task that would be made easier with an external library (like Requests) but I'm not going to bother dealing with the Python module install pain for a one-off task.
I find the opposite. Installing a useful module for a once-off task is a no brainer, since I won't have to worry about whether I'm introducing some long-term dependency I'll have to maintain.
The real issue is in discovering that a better option exists in the first place.
Re: The Python Standard Library - Where Modules Go To Die
#5This has kind of happened in Ruby, too. Fortunately, Ruby gems are super easy to install and the standard library got some much-needed spring cleaning in 1.9. Python could use the same. There have been many times where I've wanted to do some simple task that would be made easier with an external library (like Requests) but I'm not going to bother dealing with the Python module install pain for a one-off task.
> the Python module install pain for a one-off task.
"pip install requests" ?
Re: The Python Standard Library - Where Modules Go To Die
#6This has kind of happened in Ruby, too. Fortunately, Ruby gems are super easy to install and the standard library got some much-needed spring cleaning in 1.9. Python could use the same. There have been many times where I've wanted to do some simple task that would be made easier with an external library (like Requests) but I'm not going to bother dealing with the Python module install pain for a one-off task.
I tend to use pip, requirements file, and virtualenv. No real trouble.
Re: The Python Standard Library - Where Modules Go To Die
#7> An overstatement, certainly, but with more than a germ a truth. Once a library is enshrined in the standard set, it can’t change radically because too many programs rely on it—and its bugs, idiosyncrasies, and complications—remaining stable.
That's a problem inherent in the standardization process, though - it's all but contradictory to have something be both 'standard' and 'continuously improving'.
Once something enters the standard, does anyone propose a better way of removing cruft without constantly deprecating everything, rendering the concept of a 'standard' somewhat meaningless?
Re: The Python Standard Library - Where Modules Go To Die
#8The permalink for the article is http://www.leancrew.com/all-this/2012/04/where-modules-go-to... (the posted link is actually the home page of the blog).
Re: The Python Standard Library - Where Modules Go To Die
#9The fact that the standard library is well-maintained, carefully debugged, and backward-compatible is a far stronger indicator of Python's awesomeness than the existence of shiny, new libraries. Hackers naturally gravitate toward high-visibility projects with brave horizons and bold scopes. By contrast, it is incredibly hard to find the motivation to update, for the umpteenth time, a warty API -- and that's precisely the reason why contributions of the latter sort are the truer test of the vitality of a language's ecosystem.
Re: The Python Standard Library - Where Modules Go To Die
#10This has kind of happened in Ruby, too. Fortunately, Ruby gems are super easy to install and the standard library got some much-needed spring cleaning in 1.9. Python could use the same. There have been many times where I've wanted to do some simple task that would be made easier with an external library (like Requests) but I'm not going to bother dealing with the Python module install pain for a one-off task.
> the Python module install pain for a one-off task. "pip install requests" ?
Unfortunately, it seems the official documentation on installing Python modules[0] makes absolutely no mention of pip or even easy_install. Seems like something that should be there, right?