Python evangelists unite!

Peter Hansen peter at engcorp.com
Mon Dec 3 00:09:07 EST 2001


[Top-quoting corrected.]

Peter Milliken wrote:
> "Peter Hansen" wrote:
> > brueckd at tbye.com wrote:
> > > Peter Milliken wrote:
> > > > I use Python as a good, quick and dirty hacking language. For real (read
> > > > production) stuff that I expect a customer to run or will require more than
> > > > a single person working for a couple of hours, I look elsewhere :-). Sure
> > > > there are examples of Python being used for "large" jobs - and very
> > > > successful they have been too - but these people are masochists  (IMO) :-).
> > > > They could have been more productive with other languages that provide
> > > > better support for generic software engineering principles/standards.
> > >
> > > I am *so* glad that there are people in the world that share your opinion
> > > because you hand me a competitive advantage on a silver platter. I don't
> > > even have to work for it! Keep up the good work; many, many thanks!
> >
> > Dave! :-(  Sshhhhh!
> >
> > (Most of the people here are probably not in business themselves.
> > You're not supposed to leak the secret out to our competitors!)
>
> You both prove *my* point - thanks! :-)

You're point being what again?  That we could have been more productive
using some language other than Python, and that we are masochists
because we chose to use Python instead?

If that's your claim, you're welcome to it, and Dave and I will
continue being *much* more productive than we have ever been
with other languages, for reasons clearly and directly 
attributable to the design of Python and the community.
Do you really believe Python has poor support for "generic"
engineering principles?  Maybe you're just using it wrong.
I find it supports *all* the useful engineering principles
I've ever learned, and then some.

Or did you have some other point I missed?

-- 
----------------------
Peter Hansen, P.Eng.
peter at engcorp.com



More information about the Python-list mailing list