breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk
Sat Feb 23 03:59:53 CET 2013
On 23/02/2013 02:40, Mitya Sirenef wrote:
> On 02/22/2013 09:18 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> > <steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 20:47:20 -0500, Mitya Sirenef wrote:
> >>> It's been used for many important projects by a huge number of big
> >>> companies:
> >>> http://www.python.org/about/success/
> >>> Unlike Java and C#, it's not backed by a marketing effort of a large
> >>> company, so its success is entirely due to its value.
> >> +1 QOTW
> >> Well said. While Sun (now Oracle) have spent millions marketing
> Java, and
> >> Microsoft done the same for C#, Python has got where it is almost
> >> entirely on merit and word-of-mouth.
> > It's worth noting, though, that there are self-perpetuating aspects to
> > it. I can happily distribute a .py file to a Linux audience, because
> > many Linux distros come with a Python already installed, or at very
> > least can grab one easily via the package manager. No matter how
> > awesome Fred's Awesome Internet Language is, it's not going to be as
> > good a choice as something that people can simply 'apt-get install',
> > 'yum install', or whatever they're most familiar with. I don't have
> > enough history with Python to know when that status began to be
> > achieved, nor how it happened, but I'd guess that exciting/interesting
> > a distro manager is different from being the best choice for writing
> > an application.
> > That said, though, Python is very good at both halves. But there might
> > very well be a language far superior for writing (say) a GUI app, that
> > just doesn't have the traction that Python does thanks to its
> > usefulness in the plumbing.
> > ChrisA
> Sure, that's true; I mostly meant it in context of stuff listed on that
> page, and when compared to languages of similar age.
> It's also worth noting that if there's a new language that is somewhat
> better than all established languages, but not to the extent that it
> will ever replace them (because of network effects), it's not really
> better for any practical purposes -- present and future[*] ecosystem is a
> part of a language's value proposition.
> [*] of course, future is hard to predict, especially when it hasn't yet
Seems like as good a time as any to throw this into the pot
More information about the Python-list