I admire Guido quite a lot, he’s definitely much more successful than myself at software project management and probably just about everything he does with his life. Yet when I read comments like this:
You seriously think I’d complain about something without actually having any experience working with it or attempting to replace it?
Alright Guido, you want patches, I’ll give you some patches. Try my current project for starters.
I’ve already got gear for nearly everything I complained about, and the more I work the more I’ll eventually replace all of the crap I have to use from Python while maintaining the good stuff. Give me six months and I’ll have the following:
I will make a long bet right now, that no matter how nice I am, no matter how many people use my software, no matter how much better it is than anything Python has that’s similar, Guido will not accept them as changes.
This is the history of the Python project. This is fine, all open source projects are like that. I can’t fault them for it since everyone does it, even me to a certain extent.
What is dumb about Python though is they demand higher quality input from critics than they do from contributors in their club. They say someone like me should have patches (totally ignoring all my work on email of late), go through the PEP process, but their buddy creates a crap ass install tool and it’s accepted with open arms even though it is totally and completely broken for an obvious reason.
So Guido, with much respect and in the spirit of debate, I will submit patches and work from my Lamson project on two conditions:
Otherwise, why should I bother when I’m held to a higher standard then regular contributors who create obviously broken software, and when there’s a high probability all of my work will be for nothing?