Sanghyeon Seo wrote: > I took some time to write this HOWTO: > http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/fepy/howto/simplehttpserver-ironpython-mono-howto.html
Thanks for spending the time writing this. Whilst I don't run Mono or anything similar, new Python documentation is surely a welcome thing. > IronPython seems to get much less interest than it deserves. [...] > The purpose of this document is twofold: to show how to run > SimpleHTTPServer on IronPython on Mono, and to debunk some myths like: > > * IronPython doesn't run on Mono But it does require recent versions, according to the document. Requiring the latest stuff straight from the revision control repository is always an inhibiting factor in the adoption of software. > * IronPython doesn't support Python standard library > * IronPython is a toy I don't think people really believe either of these any more. However, the IronPython developers haven't really done a good job at explaining the benefits of their work, or clearing up potential misconceptions. For example, take a look at the previously-promoted Web site: http://www.ironpython.com It's out-of-date and doesn't mention the current Web site, which is a mere section of some corporate "community" site for .NET: hardly a good way of promoting something with (potential for) a fairly decent brand identity. Then, consider the licensing situation: whilst IronPython appears to have a fairly permissive licence [1], Microsoft have decided to put it under their "shared source" umbrella [2], confusing things substantially, since that label used to mean that you could conditionally look at Microsoft's code but do little else with it; even now they promote three licences, one of which being similar but not exactly the same as the "Shared Source License for IronPython". With various existing open source licences, particularly the Free Software licences, you know where you stand almost straight away. Meanwhile, confusing, marketing-directed labelling only makes people less certain about what they're getting into and what's being hidden from them. However, one benefit of Microsoft's desire to simplify their licensing is that the resulting compatibility with existing licences has had some tentative recognition [3]. Finally, there's the issue of the platform. I imagine that many people regard the debate as being over as to whether Mono and other similar projects independent of Microsoft are genuinely open, now that various Free Software-oriented GNU/Linux distributions are planning to distribute Mono, but the Mono developers don't score any publicity points for having belittled some fairly legitimate concerns about things like patent claims related to the various "standards" involved. For what it's worth, nagging concerns about the Java platform's openness (especially related to the add-on standards like J2EE) still linger in the open source community. One other thing, not any fault of the IronPython developers themselves: I guess it doesn't help that the canonical implementation of Python - CPython - keeps growing new features which have already left Jython struggling to catch up. If IronPython users consider themselves to be part of the wider Python community, is it a good thing that they're reliant on Microsoft to keep that community from fragmenting? Paul [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00089.html [2] http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/sharedsourcelicenses.mspx [3] http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/2005q4/000120.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
