[Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:36:51AM -0500, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> I don't think it's asymmetric. People have raised several practical
> problems with a large stdlib in this thread. These include:
> - The evelopment of stdlib modules slows to the rate of the Python
> release schedule.
That's not a bug, that's a feature :-)
Of course that's a concern for rapidly changing libraries, but they
won't be considered for the stdlib because they are rapidly changing.
> - stdlib modules become a permanent maintenance burden to CPython core
That's a concern, of course. Every proposed library needs to convince
that the potential benefit outweighs the potential costs.
On the other hand mature, stable software can survive with little or
no maintenance for a very long time. The burden is not necessarily high.
> - The blessed status of stdlib modules means that users might use a
> substandard stdlib modules when a better thirdparty alternative
Or they might re-invent the wheel and write something worse than either.
I don't think it is productive to try to guess what users will do and
protect them from making the "wrong" choice. Wrong choice according to
whose cost-benefit analysis?