[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[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 
> developers.

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 
> exists.

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?