John Nagle <na...@animats.com> writes: (for some reason quoting himself extensively without further comment)
> On 3/29/2015 1:19 PM, John Nagle wrote: > > On 3/29/2015 12:11 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > >> John Nagle <na...@animats.com> writes: > >>> The Python 3 documentation at > >>> https://docs.python.org/3/howto/webservers.html > >>> > >>> recommends "flup" > >> > >> I disagree. In a section where it describes FastCGI, it presents a tiny > >> example as a way to test the packages installed. The example happens to > >> use ‘flup’. > >> > >> That's quite different from a recommendation. You don't respond to that. So I take it that you won't be claiming any more that the documentation “recommends” use of ‘flup’? > >> You have found yet another poorly-maintained package which is not > >> at all the responsibility of Python 3. > >> Why are you discussing it as though Python 3 is at fault? > > > > That's a denial problem. Uncritical fanboys are part of the > > problem, not part of the solution. To be critical entails rejecting an assertion presented without supporting evidence. You have provided none for your assertion that an unmaintained third-party library is somehow a special failure of Python 3. You removed relevant critical questions without responding to them. Let me continue to ask these critical questions, in hope of getting a pertinent response this time: Why are you discussing it as though Python 3 is at fault? What do you expect to change *about Python 3* that would address the perceived problem? Whose responsibility is it to do that? In the absence of good answers to those questions, the proper critical response would be to dismiss your unsupported claims. -- \ “Guaranteed to work throughout its useful life.” —packaging for | `\ clockwork toy, Hong Kong | _o__) | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
