[Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 10:05:47 -0500
"Benjamin Peterson" <benjamin at python.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, at 08:45, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > Le 29/11/2018 ? 15:36, Benjamin Peterson a ?crit :
> > >>
> > >> I'd like to point the discussion is asymmetric here.
> > >>
> > >> On the one hand, people who don't have access to PyPI would _really_
> > >> benefit from a larger stdlib with more batteries included.
> > >>
> > >> On the other hand, people who have access to PyPI _don't_ benefit from
> > >> having a slim stdlib. There's nothing virtuous or advantageous about
> > >> having _less_ batteries included. Python doesn't become magically
> > >> faster or more powerful by including less in its standard
> > >> distribution: the best it does is make the distribution slightly
> > >> smaller.
> > >>
> > >> So there's really one bunch of people arguing for practical benefits,
> > >> and another bunch of people arguing for mostly aesthetical or
> > >> philosophical reasons.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > Can you explain why that would be the case? As a matter of fact, the
> > Python release schedule seems to remain largely the same even though we
> > accumulate more stdlib modules and functionality.
> The problem is the length of the Python release schedule. It means, in the extreme case, that stdlib modifications won't see the light of day for 2 years (feature freeze + 1.5 year release schedule). And that's only if people update Python immediately after a release. PyPI modules can evolve much more rapidly.
Ah, I realize I had misread as "the development of stdlib modules slows
the rate of the Python release schedule" (instead of "slows *to* the