-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tal Einat wrote: >> I would like to propose removing IDLE from the standard library. >> >> I have been using IDLE since 2002 and have been doing my best to help >> maintain and further develop IDLE since 2005. > > I'm surprised by the amount of interest this has raised already. To > answer a few questions that were raised: > > In recent years I have worked up many patches, both bugfixes and new > features and improvements. Getting any attention to these was > non-trivial, and getting patches accepted (or an explanation why they > are rejected in some cases) almost always took many months, sometimes > years, and some are still unresolved. It has been very frustrating. > > When I ran into bugs I fixed them and submitted a patch. I have also > done so for quite a few bugs reported by others. However, there are > currently several bugs in the tracker which nobody is taking any > notice of. IIRC most of the recent bugs are related to OSX or 64-bit > Windows. > > To those who mention that IDLE is "okay" or "not going uphill", my > grandfather would say "if you aren't running forwards, you are falling > behind." You should know how IDLE looks to programmers seeing it for > the first time -- IDLE's quirky and old-fashioned looks and interface > are a major turnoff for new users. As a result I have stopped > recommending it to coworkers, despite personally liking IDLE, instead > recommending the basic command-line or IPython for interactive work, > and any other IDE or text editor for development. > > I too prefer IDLE to the basic command line, and think that something > like IDLE is well-suited for learning/teaching Python. I also think an > interpreter with a nice GUI can be far superior to a text-only > interpreter. However, I've mostly lost hope for IDLE, and am currently > hoping that something else takes its place. > > The fact is that for many years little effort has gone into developing > and maintaining IDLE, and I believe being tucked in a corner of the > Python codebase is a major reason for this. I really don't see why > IDLE has to be part of the standard library, what's wrong with IDLE > being an externally maintained application? > > Yes, IDLE still works (mostly), but us few who continue to use it > could do so even if it weren't part of the standard library.
I wonder if moving it out of stdlib might actually help improve its development velocity: maybe if it were managed via bitbucket, with user-visible forks to known fixes, etc., it would get "caught up" to people's expectations. Perhaps I'm really suggesting that there be an 'idle2' project nn bitbucket, as a "friendly fork" of the mostly freeze-dried version in stdlib. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkw7JcAACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ73RACfTcPaDXPFlg8EWnBxYj3qfWwg qswAn3Ws/FvYqLLiYGvgzEpd1sIpWuWJ =ZlSp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
