4 ms·

> I view dependencies outside of the standard library as a kind of technical debt That's an interesting position. So are you suggesting that very specialised p

by qayxc 4y ago

> I view dependencies outside of the standard library as a kind of technical debt That's an interesting position. So are you suggesting that very specialised packages such as graph plotting, ML-packages, file formats, and image processing should be part of the standard library? What about very OS/hardware-specific packages, such as libraries for microcontrollers? There are many areas that don't have a common agreed-upon set of idioms or functionality and that are way too specialised to be useful for most users. I really don't think putting those into the standard library would be a good idea.

at_a_remove 4y ago
Hrm. Graph-plotting ... yes. File formats ... yes, as many as possible. Image processing, given the success of ImageMagick, I'd say yes there as well. I don't know much about ML to say. OS-specific packages, quite possibly. The thing about the standard library is that it is like high school: there's a lot of stuff you think you will never need, and you're right about most of it, but the stuff you do need you're glad you had something going, at least.
- qayxc 4y ago
  ImageMagick is actually a good example: I use Python as my primary tool for shell scripting (I don't like "traditional" shell scripts for various reasons) - if I can use Python to control external tools such as ImageMagick, why would I want to include all its functionality, codecs, effects, etc. in the standard library? Including too much leads to a huge burden for the maintainers and consequently results in this: https://peps.python.org/pep-0594/ https://peps.python.org/pep-0594/ Quote: > Times have changed. With the introduction of PyPI (née Cheeseshop), setuptools, and later pip, it became simple and straightforward to download and install packages. Nowadays Python has a rich and vibrant ecosystem of third-party packages. It’s pretty much standard to either install packages from PyPI or use one of the many Python or Linux distributions. > On the other hand, Python’s standard library is piling up with cruft, unnecessary duplication of functionality, and dispensable features.

by qayxc 4y ago

at_a_remove 4y ago

Hrm. Graph-plotting ... yes. File formats ... yes, as many as possible. Image processing, given the success of ImageMagick, I'd say yes there as well. I don't know much about ML to say. OS-specific packages, quite possibly. The thing about the standard library is that it is like high school: there's a lot of stuff you think you will never need, and you're right about most of it, but the stuff you do need you're glad you had something going, at least.

qayxc 4y ago
ImageMagick is actually a good example: I use Python as my primary tool for shell scripting (I don't like "traditional" shell scripts for various reasons) - if I can use Python to control external tools such as ImageMagick, why would I want to include all its functionality, codecs, effects, etc. in the standard library? Including too much leads to a huge burden for the maintainers and consequently results in this: https://peps.python.org/pep-0594/ https://peps.python.org/pep-0594/ Quote: > Times have changed. With the introduction of PyPI (née Cheeseshop), setuptools, and later pip, it became simple and straightforward to download and install packages. Nowadays Python has a rich and vibrant ecosystem of third-party packages. It’s pretty much standard to either install packages from PyPI or use one of the many Python or Linux distributions. > On the other hand, Python’s standard library is piling up with cruft, unnecessary duplication of functionality, and dispensable features.