Re: Proposal: No more standard library additions

Phillip J. Eby wrote:

>>> This sounds good. We definitely need *something* with
>>> a more modular and better documented architecture than
>>> distutils.
>>
>> I definitely disagree. Why are you calling distutils non-modular?
>> It was designed to be modular and extensible,
>
> No, it's designed to be subclassable and customizable.  That is very
> different from being extensible.  setuptools is somewhat
> extensible.  zc.buildout is very extensible.  But the distutils are
> not extensible.  The documentation or lack thereof has nothing to do
> with it.
>
> "Modular" is a red herring.  The distutils isn't a bad framework, for
> its time.  But it was not designed with extensibility (vs.
> customizability) in mind.
>
> The difference between the two is that an extensible system is one
> that follows the same rules for extenders as it does for its core
> developers.

Being among the ones who have fought many times against the lack of a proper
extensible design in distutils, I can't but agree.

Giovanni Bajo