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

[Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

Quick note on the pip discussion: if the likely remaining users of a module
slated for deprecation are professionals maintaining some legacy code, pip
is a fine solution. OTOH if the likely users are beginners, maybe pip is
not great.

In general I think it's fine to err on the side of caution -- as someone
already said, we're only removing *dead* batteries, not *leaky* ones. If
there's too much pushback for a particular module, maybe it's not dead yet.
We can make another list in a few years.

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 6:28 AM Paul Moore <p.f.moore at> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 14:03, Steven D'Aprano <steve at> wrote:
> > I know that saying anything against pip and virtual environments is
> > heresy, but honestly, "just install it from PyPI" is not friendly to
> > beginners or those who just want something that works without a load of
> > extra complexity.
> Speaking as a pip developer, I 100% support this comment. For a major
> segment of Python's user base, if something isn't in the stdlib (or
> their preferred distribution - Anaconda or a Linux distro, for
> example) then it's a significant step upward in complexity.
> Having said this, I'm not as sure I agree with the rest of Steven's
> posting. I think that in general, this PEP is sensible and strikes a
> good balance. It's all very well saying "the Python core devs aren't
> willing to support these libraries any more" - but being quite that
> blunt invites a backlash. The PEP demonstrates that we're doing due
> dilligence over the process, and even if some people disagree with the
> decisions made, the arguments have been made in public. "You can get
> equivalents off PyPI" is only a very minor part of the argument here,
> the main thrust being "... and in general we don't think many people
> need to". It's a judgement call, and it needs review, but "rarely
> used" captures the sense well enough (given that we want a short
> phrase, not an explanatory paragraph...)
> Regarding the title, It strikes me as fine, it's a slightly light
> hearted play on the "batteries included" idea, and even if the
> batteries in question aren't entirely dead, they are definitely pinin'
> for the fjords. Discussions like this need a bit of levity to keep us
> all grounded, IMO.
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at
> Unsubscribe:

--Guido van Rossum (
*Pronouns: he/him/his **(why is my pronoun here?)*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>