I agree with you that the title is baiting. His complaints are essentially: 1. The 'sys' and 'os' modules require too much typing and aren't 'beautiful' enough

I agree with you that the title is baiting. His complaints are essentially: 1. The 'sys' and 'os' modules require too much typing and aren't 'beautiful' enough. 2. 'Requests' isn't stdlib. (because obviously) 3. Rargh time zones are annoying. (not python's fault that we, as people, split time into arbitrary 'zones') 4. I prefer a different testing module. And his solutions are: 1. To use a wrapper that requires a little less typing. 2. To complain about it. 3. To use a third party lib that 'solves' the issue because it gets updated more frequently. 4. To use a different testing module. I don't see how any of this means that Python's stdlib has 'dead batteries.' What a garbage article. On a side note, I feel this is a terrible idea: >The proposal introduces a provisional stage that allows packages to go into the standard library without enforcing the hard guarantees of backwards compatibility and API stability that previously made standard library inclusion undesirable. The standard lib should be made of things that are rock solid. You don't build a house on unreliable-but-so-fun-to-use materials, nor should Python mess with stability so that blog writers bitch less.