Python evangelists unite!

[Peter Milliken]

Yeah, I guess you missed the point. But then you're very busy making money
aren't you? :-) So perhaps we shouldn't be too critical :-)

The major point was that Python is good for some simple, single person
jobs - which you and your mate obviously do, but it is *not* good for larger
projects that involve more than one individual (IMO :-)) - this statement
has implications on the size of the job in a very direct way.

As for Python meeting *all* of the software engineering principles you ever
*learned* - well, only you can be the judge of what you did or didn't learn
:-). It certainly fails in a number of important areas that I *learned*
about software engineering :-). So lets leave it at the fact that we have
different educational backgrounds :-).

Evangelical support of a language is nice to see, just don't let it blind
you to what is available in the way of tools. Python is a tool. Just as a
carpenter wouldn't attempt to build a house using only a hammer, I wouldn't
attempt to write all of my software using Python. I like Python, I use
Python. But I realise that Python has some severe limitations. I wouldn't
use Python to "build a house".

All you have to do is look at the Pep requests and tools such as PyChecker
to realise the deficiencies of the language. Sure it will grow as a result
of some of these tools and requests but it has some fundamental design basis
that can never change - but it keeps Guido gainfully employed and good luck
to him:-). Programmers should be aware of the limitation of any tool in
their toolbox and act accordingly (and please, don't throw C/C++ into the
argument! I consider C and by extension C++, nothing more than high level
assembler! :-)). There are a great deal of very mature languages out there
that provide greater support for programming in the large. You could stick
with Python as it matures and continually shoe-horn your design into its
features and as long as you're a one man band that doesn't have to provide
long term support for something that you wrote (I mean *long* term - a 10 -
15yr life for many products isn't uncommon - how long will your last job
survive in production?). Obviously you haven't worked at the architectural
level of any *large* projects (10's or even 100's of programmers) otherwise
you would never make the statements you do. Ignorance is bliss I guess :-)

In the meantime, Python seems to suit you, so enjoy! :-)
Peter

"Peter Hansen" <peter at engcorp.com> wrote in message
news:3C0B08F3.C9CDE885 at engcorp.com...
> [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