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

[Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On 29Nov2018 0254, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> 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.

My experience is that the first group would benefit from a larger 
_standard distribution_, which is not necessarily the same thing as a 
larger stdlib.

I'm firmly on the "smaller core, larger distribution" side of things, 
where we as the core team take responsibility for the bare minimum 
needed to be an effective language and split more functionality out to 
individual libraries. We then also prepare/recommend a standard 
distribution that bundles many of these libraries by default (Anaconda 
style), as well as a minimal one that is a better starting point for 
low-footprint systems (Miniconda style) or embedding into other apps.