Ian Bicking: the old part of his blog

Comment

Some more thought on how to provide multiple versioning of modules might enable a tidy-up of the standard libraries to occur in an evolutionary way. If not, I suspect no action will be taken. So I like this idea.

Newer, rationalised and development-class modules could be supplied in an "uppermost layer", and "sink down" into lower levels when they become more tested and stable.

I like the idea of this kind of mechanism for user-written code, also. This can be used to apply temporary fixes to a software product that can eventually settle down to a base-product layer after confidence in stability has been won.

Better IDE-tools to allow module browsing and re-organising will become more essential. Perhaps we should have plain web-apps based on someone's brave decision to support Quixote or some other framework to act as the official Python Local Facilities PLF. PLF being the documentation-server, tutorial server, installation builder/manager and very basic IDE and run-time environment. So, not going as far as Zope, being much more general in audience target but cerrtainly Zope-like. Personally I am in favour of a larger distribution that makes standard Python adoption a better experience.
Comment on Thinking about the Python Standard Library
by jorjun