3 ms·
Would be interesting to their reasons, but I'd be surprised if they had chosen it. I freaking love ipython, but it has a bunch of dependencies and extends far b
by benrutter 2y ago
Would be interesting to their reasons, but I'd be surprised if they had chosen it. I freaking love ipython, but it has a bunch of dependencies and extends far beyond just being a repl for the language and introduces things like magic commands, execute as shell, fallback logic etc.
Given how tight python keeps it's standard library, it seems pretty much imposssible to imagine those kind of advance features being developed while providing the stability that python normally asks from it's standard library.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y agoI just tested installing ipython and it came with 17 dependencies. Some of which are probably pretty heavy and/or way too in flux to make it into the standard library.
- krick 2y agoThat's fair. But I wonder if developing a "better REPL" won't be essentially a bug-ridden implementation of half of the ipython. Like that lisp joke... So I don't know if community work to de-couple ipython into "essential" and "jupyter-stuff" is any viable, but I'd really consider it before committing to write the same thing (but worse) from scratch.