Christopher Koppler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> 2. "plausible but there are sound technical reasons to be wary" > > > > A security-critical financial application. > > Why, specifically? Would you need to eval user input?
Static typing, checked exceptions, etc. > > I haven't used those either (well, I looked at some, but I generally > feel better at home in Emacs or even Idle than some glitzy IDE), but > I find Python's debugging facilities completely sufficient, > especially since I nearly never use them ;-) The interactive > environment and unit testing are just great for whatever I've needed > so far. But then I haven't used Python in a really *large* project > yet, either. I think it's partly a matter of development style. I like debuggers where some people prefer print statements. IDLE's debugging features were very crude, and IDLE locked up all the time or left stray threads around when I used it. There's lots of times when I have a cool programming idea, and find when I sit down at the computer that I can implement the main points of the idea and get a neat demo running rather quickly. That creates a very happy, liberating feeling, plus gives me something to show off to friends or co-workers. But turning it into a finished product with no rough edges is an order of magnitude more work. It seems to me that IDLE and a lot of the rest of Python are examples of someone having a cool idea and writing a demo, then releasing it with a lot of missing components and rough edges, without realizing that it can't reasonably be called complete without a lot more work. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
