javajohn at cox.net
Tue Oct 11 16:50:38 CEST 2005
Ville Voipio wrote:
> In article <A_CdnfnrU4zBT9feRVn-jw at telcove.net>, Thomas Bartkus wrote:
>>All in all, it would seem that the reliability of the Python run time is the
>>least of your worries.
I agree - design of the application, keeping it simple and testing it
thoroughly is more important for reliability than implementation
language. Indeed, I'd argue that in many cases you'd have better
reliability using Python over C because of easier maintainability and
higher-level data constructs.
> Well, let's put it this way. I have seen many computers running
> Linux with a high load of this and that (web services, etc.) with
> uptimes of years. I have not seen any recent Linux crash without
> faulty hardware or drivers.
> If using Python does not add significantly to the level of
> irreliability, then I can use it. If it adds, then I cannot
> use it.
I wrote a simple Python program that acts as a buffer between a
transaction network and a database server, writing the transaction logs
to a file that the database reads the next day for billing. The simple
design decoupled the database from network so it wasn't stresed during
high-volume times. The two systems (one for redundancy) that run the
Python program have been running for six years.
-- John Waycott
More information about the Python-list