On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:19:07 -0800, "Carl J. Van Arsdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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. >
You misunderstand. I wasn't expressing a lack of confidence in Python threads, but in the facility with which they can be used by programmers. Jean-Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
