On Sep 28, 11:53 am, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alex Martelli wrote: > > John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> TheFlyingDutchman wrote: > >>> It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than > >>> what it adds. > > >>> What are the additions that people find the most compelling? > >> I'd rather see Python 2.5 finished, so it just works. > > > And I'd rather see peace on Earth and goodwill among men than _either_ > > Python 3 or your cherished "finished" 2.5 -- the comparison and implied > > tradeoff make about as much sense as yours. > > Insofar as Python has an organization, it's not adequately managing > extension modules. Each extension module has its own infrastructure, > with its own build procedures, its own bug list, and its own maintainers. > There's not even an archive. Unlike CPAN, Cheese Shop is just a directory of > URLs. > > Take a look at how Perl does it. Here are the instructions on > how to contribute to CPAN: > > http://www.cpan.org/modules/04pause.html > > There's a way to get your module into the system, a standardized format, > build, and installation procedure, and an archive which is mirrored. > There's a common bug reporting system. Modules abandoned by their > original developers are not lost, and can be "adopted" by someone else. > > Python doesn't have any of this. And that's far more of a problem > than Python 3.x.
Does Perl support extension modules, and if so, are they so prevalent as in Python ? Either case, bringing up CPAN is moot in this case; nothing can force an external open source contributor to maintain or provide binaries for his packages. How is this a problem of the *language* ? George -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list