On 10 Sep 2005 03:16:02 EDT, Tim Daneliuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > frameworks are unlikely to serve them well as written. I realize this is > all at a level of complexity above what you had in mind, but it's easy > to forget that a significant portion of the world likes/needs/benefits > from things that are *not* particularly generic. This is thus reflected > in the software they write.
In my opinion this has got more to deal with the open source vs. proprietary debate, that I wouldn't like to talk about, since it's somewhat marginal. What I was pointing out is well summarized in the subject: Why do Pythoneers reinvent the wheel? Reinventing the wheel (too much) is Bad for both the open source community and industry. It's bad for development in general. I got the feeling that in the specific case of Python the ultimate reason for this tendency in also the same reason why this language is so much better that others for, say, fast prototyping and exploration of new ideas: it's simple. So, without taking anything out of python, I'm wondering if a richer and less formal alternative standard library would help forming a common grounds where programmers could start from in order to build better and reinvent less. If such an aid to _general_ problem solving is indeed missing (I might be wrong) from the current state of python, I don't really think the reason is related to industry. I would look for reasons elsewhere, like it beeing difficult to come out with effective decisional support in an open source community, or something like this. I can certainly see the challenge of who and how should decide what goes in the library, and what not. stefano -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
