On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 2:21:59 PM UTC-7, Paul Rubin wrote: > http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2019/05/amber-brown-batteries-included-but.html > > This was a controversial talk at the Python language summit, giving > various criticisms of Python's standard library,
I will try to find some time to read through Amber Brown's remarks. For now, I just want to remind everyone that we had this exact discussion here, about two years ago. First post in the thread, if you want to see the source: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.lang.python/B2ODmhMS-x4/KMpF4yuHBAAJ Here are a few excerpts from the thread: On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 11:01:03 PM UTC-7, Terry Reedy wrote: > The particular crippler for CLBG [Computer Language Benchmark Game] > problems is the non-use of numpy in numerical calculations, such as the > n-body problem. Numerical python extensions are over two decades old > and give Python code access to optimized, compiled BLAS, LinPack, > FFTPack, and so on. The current one, numpy, is the third of the series. > It is both a historical accident and a continuing administrative > convenience that numpy is not part of the Python stdlib. On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 10:21:55 PM UTC+1, John Ladasky wrote: > OK, I found this statement intriguing. Honestly, I can't function without > Numpy, but I have always assumed that many Python programmers do so. > Meanwhile: most of the time, I have no use for urllib, but that module is > in the standard library. > > I noticed the adoption of the @ operation for matrix multiplication. I > have yet to use it myself. > > So is there a fraction of the Python community that thinks that Numpy > should in fact become part of the Python stdlib? What is the > "administrative convenience" to which you refer? On 2017-09-18 23:08, bream...@gmail.com wrote: > My very opinionated personnal opinion is that many third party libraries > are much better off outside of the stdlib, numpy particulary so as it's > one of the most used, if not the most used, such libraries. > > My rationale is simple, the authors of the libraries are not tied into > the (c)Python release cycle, the PEP process or anything else, they can > just get on with it. > > Consider my approach many blue moons ago when I was asking when the "new" > regex module was going to be incorporated into Python, and getting a bit > miffed in my normal XXXL size hat autistic way when it didn't happen. I > am now convinved that back then I was very firmly wrong, and that staying > out of the stdlib has been the best thing that could have happened to > regex. On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:11:58 AM UTC-7, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 01:13:23 +0100, MRAB wrote: > > > I even have it on a Raspberry Pi. "pip install regex" is all it took. No > > need for it to be in the stdlib. :-) > > That's fine for those of us who can run pip and install software from the > web without being immediately fired, and for those who have installation > rights on the computers they use. And those with easy, cheap and fast > access to the internet. > > Not everyone is so lucky. I'm not offering an opinion, just some historical context FYI. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
