On 3/8/07, Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:13:15 GMT, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > declaimed the following in comp.lang.python: > > > > > When starting out with this project, I'd made the assumption that > > Python was a stable, working, well-supported technology, like Perl > > hosting. It isn't. > > > It is interesting how your text seems to blame "Python" (the > language) when comparing not to "Perl" (the language) but to a service > field of "Perl hosting". > > At the least, be fair and use the phrase "Python hosting" in any > place you'd have used "Perl hosting"... > > > (I note in passing you did have a comment about Python, the language, > being good... but anyone reading quickly would tend to interpret, say > the part quoted above, as "Python is unstable, doesn't work, and > unsupported" -- none of which, in my experience, is true... Low-cost web > hosting with Python is a different kettle of fish [chowder, probably > <G>]) >
Mr. Nagle has a history of phrasing his personal problems as if they were vast, sweeping, general issues affecting the entire industry. The original post, and several followups, referred to *real* hosting provides, with the emphasis, and in the context of "industrial strength". Any *real* hosting provider is going to support whatever language and environment I tell them to, because I'm going to pay them a lot of money for excellent support and if they give me any trouble I will go with someone who provides what I want. What was *meant* was low priced, zero maintenance, reasonably reliable consumer level hosting. Thats a totally different market, it's not "industrial strength", and it doesn't merit the emphasis on *real* provider. And it is true that in that realm Python is not well represented. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
