The following, meant for this thread, went to another my mistake :-) --------------------------
On Feb 1, 1:35 am, Raymond Hettinger <pyt...@rcn.com> wrote: > However, even the parts of the standard library written in pure Python > don't seem to be getting read anymore, so I'm still inclined to > attribute the issue to 1) inconvenient placement of source code, > 2) a largish code base, and 3) possibly a cultural shift. There is another thread running where this was said (by a python developer?) > Actually I don't even understand how can IDLE source code quality have > anything to do with python success or future adoption, as you implied > in your statements. > High priority bugs get fixed first. IDLE source code is clearly not a > high priority issue, hence it doesn't get fixed: end of story. Now if we can put aside for a moment the fact that the person to whom this was said specializes in the art of raising others' blood pressures and making them say what they may not otherwise have said, it should be clear that this priority is at cross purposes with Raymond's. In short (at the risk of belonging to the equivalence class of others whose names start with R) I would suggest a 4th point: Code cruft Please note: I am thankful to all python devs for giving me python. Its just that when functionality becomes as large as it is for python and the target is fast moving, keeping code spic and span will generally be perceived to be a priority that has crossed the point of diminishing returns. Consequence: noobs will have a higher barrier to entry than earlier -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
