Jean-Paul Calderone wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:13:59 -0800, "Carl J. Van Arsdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Jean-Paul Calderone wrote: >> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> >>> You're right. Learning new things is bad. My mistake. >>> >>> Jean-Paul >>> >>> >> That isn't what I said at all. You have to look at it from a >> cost/benefit relationship. Its a waste of time/money to learn something >> complex to do something simple. For the simple things, use a simple >> solution. KISS. When he has an application that would require >> something more complex, it would be at that point he should consider >> using it for a project. Unless the OP has a desire to learn this >> technology, then more power to him. I, however, do not believe that >> would be the best approach for a simple problem. >> >> Knowing the appropriate tool for the job is a trait of an good engineer. >> >> > > You are assuming that he already knows how to use threads, and so there > is no investment required for a threaded solution. In my experience, it's > much safer to assume the opposite. _Even_ (often _especially_ when a > threaded solution is explicitly requested. > I have a bit more confidence in python threads, but that takes us back to the age old debate on this list. So we agree to disagree.
-c -- Carl J. Van Arsdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Build and Release MontaVista Software -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
