Ray wrote: > fuzzylollipop wrote: > > uh, no, Python predates Ruby by a good bit > > Rails might be "older" than Turbogears but it still JUST went 1.0 > > officially. > > It can't be called "mature' by any defintition.
Version numbers are a fairly useless general metric of project maturity, taken in isolation. > But at least in most developers' perception, it is (not necessarily in > the absolute sense, but perhaps relative to Django or Turbogears). > Mind, it doesn't even need to be true, we're talking of perception > here. So actual maturity isn't important when using a technology: it's "perceived maturity" that counts, right? Any continuation down that particular path of reasoning surely leads you to the point where you claim, in concert with the developers, that increasing levels of inconvenience caused by gratuitous changes or broken documentation is not caused by bugs or general immaturity but by "features". I guess this is the definition of "opinionated software" that some people are so excited about. [...] > Sadly, there are more Java guys who know about Ruby than Python, > despite the fact that Python predates Ruby by quite a few years... > (this must be that Bruce Tate dude's fault! ) If you only listen to Bruce Tate et al, I imagine you could have the above impression, but I'd be interested to see hard facts to back up those assertions. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
