Could Python supplant Java?

[goose]

Chad Myers wrote:
> "goose" <spammenotguse at hobbiton.org> wrote in message
> news:3D640BCE.4090201 at hobbiton.org...
> 
>>Dan Johnson wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>Serious question:
>>>
>>>What is so developer-hostile about Windows?
>>>
>>
>>Serious Answer(tm):
>>1. No development tools come installed with it. Without
>>even a single compiler, how does a "developer" develop ?
>>The result is usually to download/purchase a development
>>tool.
> 
> 
> That's largely irrelevant. First, because there are many
> freely downloadable tools, 

true, but that doesn't make it irrelevant ... you buy the
OS and then have to go find tools ??????

what kind of a system is that ? every system I've worked on
(other than windows) came with at least *ONE* compiler ...
and most let you rebuild the kernel as well ...

> second because most tools
> shipped with the OS are out of date by the time they're
> pressed to the CD and require updates anyhow, 

no. I'm still using VC5.something at home for windows work,
and I am STILL using gcc 2.95.something at home for all other
work ... no need to patch them, they work just fine ...

When I need more language conformance, bugs fixed etc, I'll
upgrade, right now it all works ...

> third because
> most developers are commercial 

no. You must back this up if you want me to believe it.
Of the <20 regular friends I have, only 1 has never
programmed. all of them, given access to SOME sort of a
development tool, will write something (already have
as a matter of fact)

> and paying for development
> software is not a bad thing.

not in itself, no, but the system HAS to come with something.
even my commodore 64 let me program it out the box, msdos
came with qbasic ... the only computer system in existence
that I can think of that does not come with ANYTHING is the
current windows line-up. If systems are developer-hostile, then
windows surely leads the rest of the field, as the others at
the very least install SOMETHING to let you write programs
for your machine.

> 
> MS got where it was by cowtowing to the developers. 

no, they got to where they were by OEM licensing.
period.
they *never* cowtowed to developers for as long as I
remember.
If someone else developed something nice, they promptly
got it (where do you think scandisk for DOS came from ???
Microsoft ?, remember stacker ?)

> Why
> do you think Win9x hung around so long? 

OEM licensing. read the latest news in the intel site.

> If MS was
> interested in purely pleasing end users, they would've
> ditched Windows at 3.1 and gone immediately to Windows NT.
> Instead, developers wanted to continue writing their crappy
> code which hooked into all parts of the OS and caused all
> sorts of instability (which they promptly blamed on MS).

there were apps that did this, but not all of them ... 95
could fall down on it's own if left running for more than 46,7
days (or something like that) ... some timer bug ...
(search google, should find something)

95 did not need an application program to crash it.

> Only recently has MS been taking a tough stance on developers
> with 2K/XP, security initiatives, logo programs, etc to
> get them to stop shipping crap code and making MS look so
> bad in the process.
> 
> Windows may not be as C friendly as Linux, but it is
> developer friendly and, indeed, many developers develop
> products for it. 

yes, many developers develop for it, but as you've pointed
out in a different thread, the reason developers write for
it is because it is so popular, never mind whether the developers
are writing apps or viruses ...

(yes, I know, I *am* that sneaky:-)
you've got to retract one of your two conflicting views now ...
either
1. People develop for windows because it is popular.
OR
2. Popularity hasn't much to do with it, therefore windows
is naturally virus-prone or easily exploitable.

> This is as obvious as sun light.
> 

<evil grin>
yeah, do u see ?


> 
>>2. No proper scripting environment to do nightly
>>build & test cycles (cron'd to run at midnight).
> 
> 
> Task manager supports scheduled tasks. That was in
> Windows 98, or IE 4 for Win95, IIRC.
> 
> Also, NT 3.1 (or maybe 3.51) had the 'at' command
> which would schedule commands to run. So I'm not
> sure where you get your information, because you're wrong.
> If you must type 'cron', then you can either make a batch
> file to call at, or download cygwin.

thats not what I was talking about ... I know you can
*schedule*, but you cannot *script* (properly) re-read my
sentence above, I never complained about the scheduling
of stuff under windows, just the scripting

> 
> 
>>(IDE's are nice if you're gonna sit at your desk and click
>>on the buttons, but on a 20 person project, I want to be
>>able to get everyone to save their work to a server, and
>>have *everything* recompiled from scratch, so that if
>>anyone made a change that broke someone else component, we'd
>>find out the next morning, not six weeks later when we are
>>trying to integrate our code together). The lack of a system
>>provided make utility is depressing.
> 
> 
> It's not like it is impossible to make on Windows. 

I never said it was impossible, I just said that it doesn't
come with windows, if you're a developer you have to put
half the system together yourself.

> You can
> get make from numerous sources, and nmake comes with VS.
> Not to mention numerous build tools like Ant for java
> (which is superior to make anyhow), and NAnt for .NET.
> 
> As far as the multi-developer argument, you must be living

what multi-developer argument ? I used an example above, but
never said that it could not be done under windows. the
question is "i want to run one command, on one machine, that
will cleanly recompile the other 19 peoples projects and link
it with my bits of the projects and run a test cycle on it

the lack of a proper scripting environment means that the
rebuild and test process cannot be automated.

> in a hole, 

<confused>
are you getting angry with me ? I've refrained
from rude remarks to you, would yuo possibly do the same ?
quote from a colleague at work -
	"the only times rude remarks seem to fly around are
	when the losing half of an argument realises that it
	is losing"

> because there are far more multi-developer
> projects on Windows than any other OS. 

you must prove it, or back it up in some way.

> I mean, just about
> every Fortune 500 company has armies of VB, VC++, Java
> or other developers working on Windows as their dev platform.

anecdotal evidence is not all that convincing, but I'll
concede it to you anyway.

> In fact, most companies I've seen, at least here in Austin,
> including and especially Java houses, use Windows exclusively
> for the desktop and then mixed server environments, or Windows
> only, or Unix only. But Windows on the desktop is an invariant.
> 

that's usually 'cos windows is the only choice for these
companies on the desktop. Every probably keeps sending them
mail in MSWord format, so they can't do without it. a common
form of lock-in.


> 
>>3. The inability to easily let everyone use *the* *same* *machine*
>>to compile, all at the same time (via an ssh shell, or an xterm
>>if the developer likes GUI IDE's).
> 
> 
> Hrm, I've worked for 4 companies now that have build machines or
> build farms using Terminal Services or a combination of other
> utilities. 2 of them had automated build and integration
> environments for eXtreme Programming that would monitor VSS or
> CVS for changes and automatically build and integrate changes.
> All Windows.

remember, i said  "out-the-box" way above ... out-the-box, windows
does not let you do this ... period ... of all the systems
in existence, windows is the only one where you have to pay more
just to get more developers onto it.

> 
> 
>>This way it is possible to make
>>sure that no developer is using a compiler which could possibly
>>be patched to a different version than the others (autoupdate?).
>>
>>4. The lack of a single decent editor ... 'nuff said.
> 
> 
> Um... Visual Studio 6? Visual Studio .NET for .NET. Much more
> consistency than the thousand or so editors on *nix.

yeah, but they dont come with windows. so that story is out the
window (pun intended :-) ... the reason that other systems are MORE
developer friendly, is because they COME with most of what a developer
needs to develop. windows comes with NOTHING that a developer needs
in order to develop, which is why I consider it to be the *least*
friendly to developers.

> I've heard the horror stories of vi, emacs, IDEs, etc all trying
> to cooperate. I know many companies using VS to integrate and
> collaborate and it works very well, especially with integrated
> VSS support.
> 
> Seems like you really don't know what you're talking about.

seems to me like that's bait :-) (or am i wrong ?)

of all the systems I've worked on, only windows needs help to turn it
into a development machine, all the others install tools (or prompt
you on installation asking if you want to install)

so, can you answer this question:
Which is the only system to come without a *SINGLE* development tool ?

<insert drumroll here>
and the answer IS ______________


-- 
goose
ruse at webmail dot co dot za