3 ms·
I don't disagree, and so was Python's standard library in 2003. The issue with standard libraries is that the moment they move past algorithms, data structures
by the_mitsuhiko 5y ago
I don't disagree, and so was Python's standard library in 2003. The issue with standard libraries is that the moment they move past algorithms, data structures and basic IO they are often not lasting for more than 5 years.
Even the Go standard library is quickly aging as contexts were not around when it was first created. It will be interesting to see how Go's standard library is going to evolve with Generics and more reliance on contexts.
- zibzab 5y ago> Even the Go standard library is quickly aging If anything, I found go stdlib to age like fine wine. It doesn't do everything under the sun, but what it does it does very well and can easily be extended if needed.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y agoI think the argument was that Go is still too young to make that argument in the long view.
- tptacek 5y agoWell, the time threshold given above was 5 years. It's been 10 since 1.0.
- wheelerof4te 5y agoPython, the language, is easy to learn. It's stdlib is not. I agree that we need a serious refactoring of Python's stdlib.
- berkes 5y ago> serious refactoring of Python's stdlib. My hands start to sweat at the idea of this becoming The Python 4 Debacle.
- wheelerof4te 5y agoLanguage semantics != stdlib.
- berkes 5y agoIt doesn't matter why a new version would be very backwards-incompatible. Whether that is language semantics (2->3) or deprecation and replacement of stdlib (3->4 ?)