Python 2.0

[Martijn Faassen]

[Gang Li is against Python on top of the JVM]
[Graham says you're just evangelizing]
[Fredrik replies Gang Li did say something: Python not on Java, and
offers some statistics on what developers do now]

Graham Matthews wrote:
> The only "reasons" he offers
> for why Python shouldn't be "tied to Java" are all hyperbole and
> evangelism. No technical content whatsoever.

Please read my own reply about strategical arguments, which are in my
opinion important as well, along with technical arguments. You offer
some strategical arguments for building Python on top of Java, after
all. For instance, the argument that building Python on top of the JVM
is good because of continued heavy development in speeding up the JVM is
not a purely technical argument, but also a strategical one.

My post didn't have much technical content but seems well-reasoned and
not overly evangelical, I think. I do agree Gang Li's arguments appeal
to emotions a bit too much, but after all I'm butting in on you being
involved in an emotional interchange yourself right now. :) (i.e. "But
then again I should have known better than to start such a thread.")

So let's try to calm down a little and go back to the technical and
strategical concerns behind our emotions. And emotions aren't that bad
after all, as long as we recognize that they're that, instead of shining
rationality. :)

Emotions-are-useful-ly yours,

Martijn




> Graham Matthews <graham at sloth.math.uga.edu> wrote:
> > Stop evangelising and start considering the technical
> > issues involve (read (!) other posts for what those issues
> > are).
> Fredrik Lundh (fredrik at pythonware.com) wrote:
> : exactly.  and since you seem to imply that you have con-
> : sidered those issues, maybe you should follow up on some
> : of the "non-envangelising" posts instead of miscrediting
> : people who don't happen to agree with you?
> 
> I have followed up Fredrik -- cf. posts on classes of references (some
> compactable, some not), colouring mark and sweep collectors, JNI, etc.
> But then again I should have known better than to start such a thread.
> 
> graham
> 
> --
>       This mountain is not visible from any inhabitable place.
>        It has no name, and since it's discovery in 1856 by a
>       British survey team, it has mysteriously resisted every
>     attempt to name it. The mountain is known simply and starkly
>      by it's original designation on the surveyor's map ... K2.