Paul Rubin <"http://phr.cx"@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:
> Since Python is being touted as good for web apps as a competitor to > PHP Python is being touted as a good language for *many* purposes, not just web applications. Python is also a "competitor" to Java, to Ruby, to Perl, to many other languages. They all have strengths and weaknesses. > it should offer the same db connectivity in its stdlib that PHP > offers in its. That doesn't follow at all. Many consider the humungous function library of PHP to be a significant downside of the system, which criterion leaves Python ahead. More is not necessarily better. > I'm paying the hosting company for access to a computer that's > connected to electricity and to the internet and which has a > straightforward OS, language package, web server, and db installed. In which case, there should be no problem with *you* installing whatever software you need to use the system for what you want. > They shouldn't have to deal with dozens of interdependent modules > downloaded from different places just to support one language. Either they are providing far more than the minimal set you describe above, or this is entirely outside their domain. Make up your mind. You can't claim both that the hosting company should have to maintain a comprehensive set of functionality, *and* that they should not have to. -- \ "Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best | `\ way to predict the future is to invent it." -- Alan Kay | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
