"bruno.desthuilli...@gmail.com" <bruno.desthuilli...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Jul 11, 2:42 am, Adam Tauno Williams <awill...@whitemice.org> > wrote: > > > > But Open Source land is simply too fragmented. There are too many > > database bindings [and RAD requires something like an ORM (think > > SQLalchemy)] and far too many GUI toolkits [Qt, Gtk, wx, and the list > > goes on and on]. > > Why "too many" ? Natural selection is a GoodThing. Natural selection is not a good thing. It is blind and unthinking and cruel and wasteful and haphazard and purposeless. Those aren't traits to recommend it, IMO. (It's also not a bad thing. Natural selection just is.) Natural selection is not what's happening here. Rather, *artifical* selection, with people as the agents of selection, have purposes and wants that guide their selections. It would be better to say: Competition can be (not an unalloyed “is”) a Good Thing. > Python is known as "the language with more web frameworks than > keywords", and this doesn't prevent some of these frameworks to be 1/ > pretty good and 2/ becoming de facto standards. Right. People are selecting web frameworks for their fitness to purposes, but their purposes are many and change over time. So there can be many such frameworks, of varying popularity, and that's a good thing. > > I also suspect - seeing some of the articles that float across the > > FLOSS-o-sphere mentioning "RAD" - that many Open Source developers > > have never had the pleasure [yes, it is a pleasure] of using a > > professional RAD tool. > > This is slightly arrogant. Did you occur to you that quite a few OSS > developers may have at least as much experience as you do with these > kind of tools and just happen to actually prefer the unix way of doing > things ? Yes. As someone who has used some of those all-in-one one-size-fits-most tools, I can testify that their usefulness is severely limited when compared with the Unix model. The Unix model is: a collection of general-purpose, customisable tools, with clear standard interfaces that work together well, and are easily replaceable without losing the benefit of all the others. -- \ “Are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Umm, I think so, | `\ Brain, but what if the chicken won't wear the nylons?” —_Pinky | _o__) and The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
