Toward Python's future article

Discussion in 'Python' started by daniel narf, Oct 7, 2004.

  1. daniel narf

    daniel narf Guest

    Hi i am sure most of you have read the article of Andrew Kuchling about focusing
    more in the standart library than language newFeatures/tweaking and probably i
    as many others would like to know what the python hackers/developers think about
    this proposal.Maybe this post is out of place but oh well..

    i am personaly very interested in improving the stdlib which is very messy in my
    opinion right now.

    the article(several comments):

    http://www.amk.ca/diary/archives/cat_python.html#003382
    daniel narf, Oct 7, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. daniel narf

    GerritM Guest

    "daniel narf" <> schreef in bericht
    news:...
    >
    > Hi i am sure most of you have read the article of Andrew Kuchling about

    focusing
    > more in the standart library than language newFeatures/tweaking and

    probably i
    > as many others would like to know what the python hackers/developers think

    about
    > this proposal.Maybe this post is out of place but oh well..
    >

    In general the article makes a lot of sense to me. I don't have any voting
    rights myself, since I have never contributed to the development myself. So
    my comments are from the users viewpoint.The strong point of Python is the
    combination of a simple, clear, and well-structured language, with a
    well-filled toolbox in the standard lib, and of course a high quality
    implementation, running out-of-the-box. The standard lib seems to develop
    relatively slower than the other elements (language and quality of
    implementations). Andrew indicates many examples where the standard lib can
    be further improved.

    I disagree with one statement: the required involvement of Guido. I do think
    that the standard lib also needs a BDFL who takes final decisions based on
    good intuition and insight, balancing elegance and pragmatism. A standard
    lib without clear concepts becomes a box of Pandorra.

    > i am personaly very interested in improving the stdlib which is very messy
    > in my opinion right now.
    >

    No, it is not very messy. Yes, there is legacy of long time evolution. But
    compared to real messy systems the Python standard lib is still very well
    structured

    regards, Gerrit Muller
    --
    Gaudi systems architecting:
    <http://www.extra.research.philips.com/natlab/sysarch/>

    Praktijk voor Psychosociale therapie Lia Charité
    <www.liacharite.nl>
    GerritM, Oct 7, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. daniel narf

    Ville Vainio Guest

    >>>>> "daniel" == daniel narf <> writes:

    daniel> Hi i am sure most of you have read the article of Andrew
    daniel> Kuchling about focusing more in the standart library than
    daniel> language newFeatures/tweaking and probably i

    Tweaking/optimizing the interpreter is all right IMO. Language
    features, esp. genexps are welcome too. I'm still not sure whether we
    are at the local maximum yet.

    Actually, what I'd like to see is (with a strong FWIW disclaimer, of
    course):

    1. Stabilize the language for Python 2.x series.

    2. Start thinking about the important stuff that will go into py3.0 -
    especially the major design issues like optional type declarations
    that will pay off in products like IronPython.

    3. Collect lots of "best of breed" stuff in a psedo-official "extra
    batteries" distribution. This should include useful and
    API-stable-ish frameworks. Some of the current standard libraries
    could be moved to the extra batteries.

    4. Publish a canonical type inference system for Python source code,
    implemented in Python of course.

    5. Put some effort in maturization of pydev+eclipse, making it the
    "obvious" choice for the freeloaders who still want a mature IDE.

    Yes, point 5 has very little to do with python standard libraries,
    just something that would accelerate corporate penetration among the
    uninitiated programmers, and is tightly mingled with point 4.

    daniel> i am personaly very interested in improving the stdlib
    daniel> which is very messy in my opinion right now.

    I'm kinda surprised about the negative press the stdlib has been
    getting as a result of AMK's blog entry. I still think stdlib is
    beautiful :).

    daniel> the article(several comments):

    daniel> http://www.amk.ca/diary/archives/cat_python.html#003382


    --
    Ville Vainio http://tinyurl.com/2prnb
    Ville Vainio, Oct 7, 2004
    #3
  4. Ville Vainio <ville <at> spammers.com> writes:
    >
    > Tweaking/optimizing the interpreter is all right IMO. Language
    > features, esp. genexps are welcome too. I'm still not sure whether we
    > are at the local maximum yet.


    I agree.

    I also support some somewhat more substantial language changes that I think
    should happen in Python 3000 when iterators become the standard (instead of
    lists). Things like evaluating function arguments as iterators instead of
    converting them to a tuple first. (Without this, something like zip(*) will
    read all the tuples in an iterator of tuples into memory before you even look
    at the elements from the first tuple.) My suspicion is that even after Python
    3000, we'll still run into language changes that we want, though I think the
    frequency with which these changes are requested will continue to decrease.
    It's one of the things that I've always liked about Python -- it's not afraid
    of a little change if that makes code cleaner and/or easier to write.

    > 5. Put some effort in maturization of pydev+eclipse, making it the
    > "obvious" choice for the freeloaders who still want a mature IDE.


    Yeah, it would be nice if there was one "obvious" IDE choice. Anyone wanna
    bet on the day of the next post that asks why there aren't any good Python
    IDEs? ;)

    > I'm kinda surprised about the negative press the stdlib has been
    > getting as a result of AMK's blog entry. I still think stdlib is
    > beautiful .


    While one of the things I like most about Python is it's outstanding stdlib, I
    wouldn't say that it's beautiful. There are some changes I'd like to see:

    * Put the bisect, collections, heapq and Queue into a collections module (and
    remove sets module since sets are now builtin)
    * Put glob, os, shutil and popen2 into an os module
    * Put getopt and optparse into an opt module (or remove getopt?)
    * Put urllib and urllib2 into a urllib module

    These happen to be the modules I use frequently, so the fact that they're not
    as well organized as I might like is more obvious to me than would be for
    other modules. But I assume that others who use other modules have also seen
    similar trends.

    Oh, and it would also be nice if all the modules followed the PEP 8 style
    guide for naming -- it would decrease the confusion about what exactly the
    suggested naming style *is*. I know I was confused about this because of the
    stdlib until I found PEP 8.

    Steve
    Steven Bethard, Oct 8, 2004
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Frankie

    OT: Toward WYSIWYG Web Page Authoring

    Frankie, Oct 2, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    392
    Mr Newbie
    Oct 2, 2005
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    333
  3. David Mertz

    My future Python IDE article

    David Mertz, Aug 26, 2003, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    954
    Chris Kassopulo
    Sep 13, 2003
  4. Mark Lawrence

    Article on the future of Python

    Mark Lawrence, Sep 25, 2012, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    129
    Views:
    1,167
    Steven D'Aprano
    Sep 29, 2012
  5. Michael Harleman

    Re: Article on the future of Python

    Michael Harleman, Sep 25, 2012, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    173
    Michael Harleman
    Sep 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page