[devmunchies]

>> Python’s standard library sucks

> I have to disagree again, I think it is pretty well designed and minimal on purpose

Oh come on. That’s like saying “this buffet has no food selection but that’s good cause I’m on a diet”. Meaning that you like that it sucks (that’s fine).

Numpy is not the kind of thing you would include in the std lib anyway.

> OK sure, it is slower than compiled languages like C++, that is a concession we make when opting for the ease of readability, writability, usability, etc.

Fair, but I’ve spent enough time python environment/dependency hell that a lot of those gains (which are mostly cognitive) weren’t worth it for me.

[dagw]

Numpy is not the kind of thing you would include in the std lib anyway.

If I could add one thing to the python standard library it would be unify the python std lib array and the numpy array and make many of the most common and useful numpy array methods available in the std lib.

[agumonkey]

yeah python is alright, it's not a masterpiece, but it's well rounded

I ported a golang (non concurrent) program that was 3 files and lots of intermediate procedures over custom types (synchronized maps)

it thing fit beautifully in a one page python script, very readable. bonus: concurrency (threadpool over queues). the only libs were click and rich but not relevant to the design

and the fact that it's repl-able you can quickly navigate in the stdlib.

ps: python docs are not amazing but they have a low signal/noise/confusion ratio. if one wants to suffer go "read" the javadoc, with it's empty package descriptions, extreme redudancy of autogenerated get/set * polymorphic methods. Or to stay in the python world, django docs. They're abysmally non technical.. it's full on guess fest to infer the relationships between classes and dataflow. Superb.