On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:12 AM, Gora Mohanty wrote:
> On 18 August 2014 21:45, chandrakant kumar wrote:
> >
> > Python 3 has been a disappointment.
>
> I am bemused by absolutist comments like this. Could you explain how
> exactly it was a disappointment for you in day-to-day work?
>
> Regards,
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Noufal Ibrahim
wrote:
> On 2014-08-19 11:11, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
>
> Hi Noufal, could you elaborate on this? I have enjoyed the freedom
>> of non-static typing that Python and Ruby offer, but also sometimes miss
>> the static type checking that C# and Java o
On 2014-08-19 12:31, Saager Mhatre wrote:
That's just a question of testing strategy. If you're writing
'elaborate'
tests at every layer, you're probably validating too much or exercising
too
much of the system at each layer of testing. The cartesian product of
tests
required to validate ever
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Noufal Ibrahim
wrote:
>
> On 2014-08-19 12:31, Saager Mhatre wrote:
>
>> That's just a question of testing strategy. If you're writing 'elaborate'
>> tests at every layer, you're probably validating too much or exercising
too
>> much of the system at each layer of
On 2014-08-19 14:05, Saager Mhatre wrote:
[..]
I realized this myself a long time ago, around the time I joined TW and
started putting Ruby in production. However, all the dynlang love in
the
air at the time seemed to be blinding people to it. Since then I've
sensed
this sentiment among those
I would like to add one point about deployment of large and complex
applications written in Python. Deployment of these types of applications
are very difficult in Python. I would love to install single statically
linked binaries for deployment. Building these binaries should be very fact
also, say
On 19 August 2014 12:32, chandrakant kumar wrote:
[...]
> Following are the problems i faced that made me revert back to Python 2.7 -
>
> 1. Lack of packages ported to Python 3, one of the main advantages of using
> Python is a large set of ready to be used packages, so that you can build
> someth
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Gora Mohanty wrote:
> We have been itching to goto Python 3, but the deal-breaker for us was
> Django
> not being ready. Now that Django does support Python 3, we did think again
> about
> moving, but held off exactly because of what you mention: Lack of
> Python
On 19 August 2014 21:24, Baiju M wrote:
>
> I would like to add one point about deployment of large and complex
> applications written in Python. Deployment of these types of applications
> are very difficult in Python.
Would you please elaborate on the difficulties? We are reasonably
happy with
On 19 August 2014 21:58, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Gora Mohanty wrote:
>
>
>> We have been itching to goto Python 3, but the deal-breaker for us was
>> Django
>> not being ready. Now that Django does support Python 3, we did think again
>> about
>> moving, but he
On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Baiju M wrote:
> I would love to install single statically linked binaries for deployment.
> Building these binaries should be very fact also, say less than 1 minute.
There are multiple solutions to to this. One that twitter uses is called PEX, a
conce
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Gora Mohanty wrote:
> On 19 August 2014 21:24, Baiju M wrote:
>>
>> I would like to add one point about deployment of large and complex
>> applications written in Python. Deployment of these types of applications
>> are very difficult in Python.
>
> Would you plea
Hi
I am late to the party, adding my thoughts.
- It is good to have Python spec and implementation decoupled from each
other. By that it would be possible to have different run time. Lot of
people say rust memory management is good, so someone can implement Python
in rust. Though library compatib
13 matches
Mail list logo
