On Apr 16, 10:42 pm, Terry Jan Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > > "The “Batteries included” philosophy of Python was definitely the right > > approach during the mid 90’s and one of the reasons that I loved Python > > so much; this was a time before modern package management, and before it > > was easy to find and install community-created libraries. Nowadays > > Python gets used in places like corporations and schools where one > cannot simply install stuff off the net, but must fill out a form asking > permission, or maybe not ask at all.
Yes I agree. Different healthy organisms are healthy based on different logic/laws. Python has no reason to follow node. [And the Roderick link is obviously a bit of a rant and a polemic] In particular one of the strongest (for me) features of python is the standard library. Recently I have been working with erlang and every so often when scratching my head against some impenetrable documentation, I would find myself saying: "God bless Guido for the python-docs" So, no, I am not critical of the std-lib. My wish is for a slightly larger perspective. Think of 3 concentric circles: 1. Python the language 2. Python std lib 3. Python 3rd party packages (that use 1 and 2) 1 and 2 are fine. And for any one person or small group to be fully conversant of the whole of 3 is unreasonable. However the surrounding infrastructure needed to populate/explore/use 3 could do with some love: - the distutils/distutils2/distribute/setuptools situation combined with pip and pypi - executable building (py2exe) - handling multiple pythons and packages eg virtualenv - tox and the various alternatives to testing -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
