You would think that sending HTTP requests is a basic capability, but I've had fun in many languages doing so. Long ago (2020, or not so long ago, depending on how you look at it) I was surprised that doing an HTTP request on node using no dependencies was a little awkward:

  const response = await new Promise( (resolve, reject) => {
    const req = https.request(url, {
    }, res => {
      let body = "";
      res.on("data", data => {
        body += data;
      });
      res.on('end', () => {
        resolve(body);
      });
    });
    req.end();
  });

AFAICT, lacking a (good) standard HTTP library is kind of the norm in popular languages. Python, Ruby, Rust, etc. all either have a lackluster standard one or are missing one. I think it sits between two many decision pressures for most languages: there are a _lot_ of different RFCs both required and implied, lots of different idioms you could pick for making requests, lots of different places to draw the line on what to support, etc.

The notable exception is Go, which has a fantastic one. But Go is pretty notable for having an incredible standard library in general.

HTTP client is at the intersection of "necessary software building block" and "RFC 2616 intricacies that are hard to implement". Has nothing to do with Python really.

> Sending HTTP requests is a basic capability in the modern world, the standard library should include a friendly, fully-featured, battle-tested, async-ready client.

I've noticed that many languages struggle with HTTP in the standard library, even if the rest of the stdlib is great. I think it's just difficult to strike the right balance between "easy to use" and "covers every use case", with most erring (justifiably) toward the latter.

> Then I found out it was broken. I contributed a fix. The fix was ignored and there was never any release since November 2024.

This seems like a pretty good reason to fork to me.

> Sending HTTP requests is a basic capability in the modern world, the standard library should include a friendly, fully-featured, battle-tested, async-ready client. But not in Python,

Or Javascript (well node), or golang (http/net is _worse_ than urllib IMO), Rust , Java (UrlRequest is the same as python's), even dotnet's HttpClient is... fine.

Honestly the thing that consistently surprises me is that requests hasn't been standardised and brought into the standard library

Don't think it's Python-specific, it's humanity-specific and Python happens to be popular so it happens more often/ more publicly in Python packages.

httpx has async support (much like aiohttp), whereas urllib is blocking-only. If you need to make N concurrent requests, urllib requires N threads or processes.

I think the python maintainers are still feeling burnt by the consequences of the "batteries included" approach from the old times.

Everybody's got a different idea of what it means for a library to be "friendly" and "fully-featured" though. It's probably better to keep the standard library as minimal as possible in order to avoid enshrining bad software. Programming languages could have curated "standard distributions" instead that include all the commonly used "best practice" libraries at the time.

Bram's Law: https://files.catbox.moe/qi5ha9.png

Python makes everything so easy.

Python doesn't have a big company behind it

The HTTP protocol is easy to implement the basic features but hard to implement a full version that is also efficient.

I've often ended up reimplementing what I need because the API from the famous libraries aren't efficient. In general I'd love to send a million of requests all in the same packet and get the replies. No need to wait for the first reply to send the 2nd request and so on. They can all be on the same TCP packet but I have never met a library that lets me do that.

So for example while http3 should be more efficient and faster, since no library I've tried let me do this, I ended up using HTTP1.1 as usual and being faster as a result.