Hallöchen! Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Torsten Bronger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> [...] >> >> None of us has talked about changing syntax. However, the >> standard library is part of the language unless you're really >> very petty. > > Or you use different Python implementations. There are four > different Python implementations in the world. Not everything in > the CPYthon standard library runs in all of them. Or are you going > to claim that someone usin Jython isn't using Python because they > can't use the full standard library? Well, in a way, they aren't using Python indeed. For example, most Python books tell only partly the truth in this case. > [...] > >>>> This is not a sign of decadence, but a very good promotional >>>> argument. >>> >>> But it's not required for the language to succeed. >> >> Today it is (except for very special-purpose languages). > > To put this differently, it's required if you want to succeed as a > language for the specific purpose of creating GUI > applications. I'd agree to that. But there are *lots* of other > application areas around, so limiting your definition of "success" > to that one field is very short-sighted. You have to take into account not only the number of application areas, but also their respective importance. I'm interested in a language with a big community. This is my definition of success. It has to do with the functionality I can expect (more contributors can create more modules and documentation) and with future-proofness. GUI applications seem to be the most attractive application type. This is not only true for commercial programming. When I look at the most agile projects on Sourceforge, almost all of them have a GUI. Therefore, GUI-aware languages attract much larger user bases, and so they cater my definition of being successful. > [...] By which measure C is still immensely popular, because of > the large number of older applications that are written in it that > are available - Python being one such. Legacy code is not a sign of success IMO because it implies a difficult future. > [...] I'd say Python has succeeded as a web development language, > and as a systems scripting language - and I've certainly missed > some. I don't think that Python should rely on these old strongholds. In the biggest bookstore of our region, there is one book about Zope but a whole bookself about PHP. And I've never used consciously a Python system script in contrast to dozens of Perl scripts. In contrast to PHP or Perl, I consider Python a general-purpose language. There is its future in my opinion. However, this area is much tougher, and you need a good GUI approach there. > [...] > >>> [...] Could it be that that's what you really want - someone to >>> distribute Python bundled with an enterprise-class GUI library >>> and IDE? >> >> Well, a nice thing to have, but besides my point. > > Then you seem to have missed some of your own points. C++ > succeeded without having a standard GUI library. You claimed that > that success was because of a single distribution that included > the things you are looking for. Why can't the same thing work for > Python? I just didn't say that it couldn't work. But I don't think it'll happen, that's all. Tschö, Torsten. -- Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
