Rocco Moretti wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: > >> Rocco Moretti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Except that (please correct me if I'm wrong) there is somewhat of a >>> policy for not including interface code for third party programs which >>> are not part of the operating system. (I.e. the modules in the >>> standard libary should all be usable for anyone with a default OS + >>> Python install.) >> >> >> >> I've never heard of Python having such a policy and I don't understand >> how such a stupid policy could be considered compatible with a >> proclaimed "batteries included" philosophy. Why would Python >> advocates want to make Python deliberately uncompetitive with PHP, >> Java, and other languages that do include database modules? > > > Well, since there seems to be an outpouring of disgust at my statement, > and no official confirmation/rejection, it's probably a figment of my > prematurely failing mind. > > However, if there was such a policy, it would not be unequivocally > "stupid." First off, there is a bit of flexibility in what is considered > part of the OS. E.g, Linux may properly refer to just the kernel, but > rarely is just the kernel installed. Various utilities and programs > might be considered part of the OS because they are ubiquitously > installed, or are included with the Python distribution itself (as Tk is > with windows Python). > > For those programs which aren't ubiquitously installed, or even for ones > that are, but require significant configuration, it is reasonable to > expect that if someone has the ability and goes to the effort of > locating, obtaining, installing, and configuring a third party program, > they can just as easily obtain and install the python module, especially > as it's usually as easy as "python setup.py install". > > At any rate, I'm not advocating such a policy, I'm just saying it can > make a bit of sense if you look at it from a certain angle. I agree. It makes sense to develop a policy first.
Colin W. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
