On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 8:29:13 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Mon, 26 May 2014 08:44:51 -0400, Roy Smith wrote: > > > > >> That makes even less sense. The build system runs under whatever > > >> version of Python it needs, and your code runs under whatever version > > >> of Python you like. The two don't affect each other at run time, and > > >> don't affect each other's testing dependencies. > > > > > > The are tightly integrated, and share code. > > > > Well there's your problem, right there. Tight coupling is a *bad* thing, > > you're supposed to minimize it, not maximize it :-) > > > > I'm having trouble understanding why your build system should be > integrated with your production code. You should, in principle, be able > to replace your build system with one written in Perl or bash without > having to touch a single line of your application. If what you say is
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. s/theory/principle [Whether thats Einsten or Yogi Berra I am not sure. I guess they are the same in principle :D ] Somewhat more seriously, I see this as a problem with all the super-kewl languages. I know it most closely with python and haskell but I think its true across the board. It goes something like this: - Language L is super-kewl - Its so kewl it spawns its own ecosystem - The ecosystem grows - World domination is almost in sight -- everything to be done with language L - Unfortunately super-kewl ≠omnipotent - Things start crumbling at the edges Case(s) in point: debian's apt is a mishmash of perl,shell etc However it is more powerful than python's pip or Haskell's cabal. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
