←back to thread

PEP 762 – REPL-acing the default REPL

(peps.python.org)
103 points Numerlor | 3 comments | 14 Oct 24 19:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.524s | source
Show context
wodenokoto ◴[15 Oct 24 09:09 UTC] No.41846571[source]▶
I feel like there’s a missing discussion as to why they aren’t going with Ipython
replies(7): >>41848474 #>>41851105 #>>41851125 #>>41851190 #>>41851214 #>>41852161 #>>41852289 #
1. benrutter ◴[15 Oct 24 17:52 UTC] No.41851125[source]▶
Would be interesting to their reasons, but I'd be surprised if they had chosen it. I freaking love ipython, but it has a bunch of dependencies and extends far beyond just being a repl for the language and introduces things like magic commands, execute as shell, fallback logic etc.

Given how tight python keeps it's standard library, it seems pretty much imposssible to imagine those kind of advance features being developed while providing the stability that python normally asks from it's standard library.

replies(2): >>41851630 #>>41854742 #
2. 0cf8612b2e1e ◴[15 Oct 24 18:33 UTC] No.41851630[source]▶
I just tested installing ipython and it came with 17 dependencies. Some of which are probably pretty heavy and/or way too in flux to make it into the standard library.
3. krick ◴[16 Oct 24 01:22 UTC] No.41854742[source]▶
That's fair. But I wonder if developing a "better REPL" won't be essentially a bug-ridden implementation of half of the ipython. Like that lisp joke...

So I don't know if community work to de-couple ipython into "essential" and "jupyter-stuff" is any viable, but I'd really consider it before committing to write the same thing (but worse) from scratch.