Interesting comments about Py on LT

[Martin v. Loewis]

Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> writes:

> > > remote method invocation
> > 
> > No, not a standard API.
> 
> Sometimes I think a _defacto_ standard is as good... when there's
> only one implementation for something in Python, as perhaps with,
> say, XML-RPC, that seems to make it as good as a standard.  At 
> least it does for me.

That is not in the same league as RMI. Please understand that RMI
supports objects (by value, by reference, with code transfer); XML-RPC
is a boy's toy in comparison. 

Pyro comes closer, as it does all these things as well, and so does
DOPY. Neither of those is standard, in the sense of an included
battery - or not even in the sense of being de facto standard.

> > > XML,
> > 
> > Yes, standard APIs - even before Java had them.
> 
> He probably would insist that there be only *one* API
> for it to be "standard"... another red herring perhaps.

And indeed, for Python, there is - it has precisely the same APIs that
Java has (SAX, DOM).

> > No need for an API: you have the full source to customize for an
> > embedded application.
> 
> To be fair, not quite the same.  Java is a better fit for really tightly
> constrained embedded systems.  

What are the memory requirements of such a Java system? I do believe
that Python has been used in environments where memory is even tighter.

Regards,
Martin