Will Python Be Good For This Type Of Project?
I'm self taught and most of what I've been working on for the past several years has been entirely in Perl and Java. I've noticed that I can code about 5 times faster in Perl than Java, in part because I feel like whenever I want to do something in Java, I have to create an object, do a few preperatory things, then do what I need, but in Perl, I just call the routine. Java, however, does much better at cross platform apps, especially if I need a GUI (I find Swing easy to use). I need to write a setting editor which basically consists of a GUI with a lot of checkboxes, radio buttons, and option select lists. I originally had something to do this in Javascript, but Javascript was not strong enough to let me create data structures to keep track of the data. I had to store it in 3d arrays, which was hard to keep up with. I was planning on writing the new setting editor in Java for several reasons, including the ability to create my own objects to store groups of settings. I also can write it so it'll run on a computer by itself, or as an applet with very little extra work. That's a benefit, since it means it can be run from anywhere through a Java enabled browser and a username and password. It can also be run on a system where it's been installed without using a browser (either way, it reads and writes the settings from a URL). Someone on a mailing list I'm on has suggested that I look into Python, and use Jython to compile it. I see that I can write applications and applets in Python (but I haven't seen references to being able to write one application just once and have it work as both). I also know Python is a higher level than Java (a few people I know say it's almost like writing pseudo code). At this time I don't know Python (I've looked at some sample code and I'm still getting used to loops and if statements without closing braces!). What I'm trying to determine is 1) if it's relatively easy to write a program to work as an application AND an applet (depending on how it's called), 2) If it'll handle the networking to read what amounts to web pages full of setting info and write that back in POST statements without problems from the user's point of view and easily from the programmer's point of view, 3) What coding time and difficulty is like in Python compared to, most specifically, Java and Perl, 4) Is it easy for me to interface Java and Python classes seamlessly, and 5) (I realize only I can answer this for sure, but opinions and experience of others would be a help!) Is Python easy enough and fast enough to code in that it'd be worth me taking time to learn it and doing the project Python instead of Java? Any help, thoughts, comments, and such are appreciated! Thank you! Hal -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: The Modernization of Emacs
Joel J. Adamson wrote: > Xah Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> >> SIMPLE CHANGES >> >> In the following, i describe some critical changes that are also very >> easy to fix in emacs. If emacs officially adopt these changes, i think >> it will make a lot people, at least programers, like emacs and choose >> emacs as their text editor. > > The problem with this line of thinking is that it aims to make Emacs > appeal to people -- I think it is rather the other way around. > Certain people appeal to Emacs: certain kinds of people like Emacs > and the way it is set up, and they change it to suit their needs. I worked for years as a special ed teacher and I learned that people have different learning styles. It's not just learning, but it's perceiving and working as well. Some people will always do better with a command line and some will always do better with a GUI with point-and-click. That doesn't mean one is smarter than the other or one is a true geek and one isn't. It's just the way our brains are wired. Emacs appeals to the type of personality that is often a hard core programmer. It works for those that want to customize everything and have full control over their environment AND do well with a command line rather than a more visual and graphic environment. For those, emacs is probably the best program for them. Some people prefer to drive a Miata and some prefer a Dodge Ram. One isn't better than the other, they're just different. Trying to make a Dodge Ram look like a convertible so Miata lovers will want to use it is a waste. It'll never be a Miata and the more people try to make it adaptable so it can be one, the more they ruin what's special about it. The more emacs is adapted for the non-technical, the more it'll lose what makes it special and a good fit for programmers. > Among your changes, I found none that made sense to me, a person who > used Unix before Windows became widely used. For people like me, who > always preferred Unix, changes like changing "buffer" to "opened file" > seem inefficient and unnecessary. It seems to me that is the kind of person emacs is written for. What will it gain if a large number of non-technical people start using it in a "non-emacs" mode? > Sorry -- this totally falls flat. It won't make Emacs more widely > used. The only thing that will make Emacs more widely used is making > people aware of it; as soon as I became aware of Emacs (from reading > Wikipedia, ironically), I began using it and I knew I was stuck with > it. It's not even important for the survival of Emacs that it be more > widely used -- it was never important in the last thirty years of its > history, why should it be important now that Microsoft Word is so > widely used? Let those who need Word use it. To try to change emacs into something it isn't is ignoring what makes it special. Hal -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
