Python -- (just) a successful experiment?

[Bengt Richter]

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 00:51:04 -0800, "EP" <EP at zomething.com> wrote:

>Robert Kern <rkern at ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>> Which is exactly why I said at the beginning that people shouldn't =
>
>> bother with this thread and should instead just get to work.
>> =
>
>
>
>Robert, you are probably right, but I think how we get to work is important=
> as well.
>
>What I posted was a little intellectually thin, but it would be nice to sti=
>r the collective energy toward some common (and useful) objectives.  I thin=
>k that something more than a superior language specification is required fo=
>r a language to get a firm foothold in the IT world (and that is something =
>I would personally like for Python.)
>
>It seems there are people very capable and willing to develop the good appl=
>ications/tools/frameworks on top of Python, but too many of those projects =
>do not gain critical mass; rather we have dozens of competing applications =
>and frameworks that never blossom to their full potential.  I'd love to see=
> a little consensus on what "goodies" should be developed atop the language=
>; what standards, principles, and API/hooks those goodies should provide; a=
>nd then a collaborative effort to get there.  Projects with a broader buy-i=
>n have a greater chance of achieving their potential.
It occurs to me that we have the PEP process for core python, but no PEP process
for the python app/lib environment. What about starting a PEEP process
(Python Environment Enhancement Proposals) modeled on PEPs, where those motivated
to formalize their pet projects or feature requests could collaborate to create
a spec to document and guide development?


>
>It does seem that perhaps some ground was gained with the WSGI effort.  I u=
>nderstand Django [http://www.djangoproject.com/], a RoR alternative based o=
>n the WSGI spec, already has some buzz though "the cat got out of the bag a=
> bit early" and Django is "not officially launched just yet."
>
>It makes sense to ask one's fellow developers and Python users what a new o=
>pen source development should look and act like if one wants to develop som=
>ething great.  Open source code denotes sharing, but we should add teamwork=
> and community involvement in the code as connotations if we want our open =
>source to reach its potential.
>
PEEP as a vehicle?

>
>What are the top 5 developments, aside from specification and implementatio=
>n details of the language itself, which Python still needs for greater succ=
>ess in the day to day IT world?
>
>
>
>
>EriPy pyDerson
>
>
>
>
>
>P.S.  In terms of a more concrete suggestion, I propose the Python communit=
>y form an intervention team who are ready to fly in and intercede any time =
>a developer, whose brilliance has been expended in their heroic coding effo=
>rt, goes to name their new module, package, or application with a "py" othe=
>r than to the right of the dot.
>
Probably better to have the PSF hire a patent/trademark lawyer to reserve rights
to py... names and the "py"-prefixing business process ;-/

Regards,
Bengt Richter