Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!goblin3!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:references:subject:date:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:x-msmail-priority :x-mailer:x-mimeole; b=Y4Ud2ey5NBb+ML0k2ylE1Zmxnhd5g3gE43wd4TdWUN1RssAcUArm7lV8t6my0hzdgO xc8IXzmy3nGJlVfo5nO/UILGUWS9sb5Lig5mfVWcStgGWuwQGpYfyWnHI+R5/DCPl0CI Vr9kzp2xRMfy/tMN2mpLDI45TK0ZVzRleaDhc=
From: "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com>
To: <python-list@python.org>
References: <80d59383-36a3-4744-85c4-1a0577f1d3a6@dr5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com><mailman.2001.1306218254.9059.python-list@python.org> <4e51c$4ddbc676$4275d90a$30907@FUSE.NET>
Subject: Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development?
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 19:18:38 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.2028.1306253945.9059.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 101
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.94.164.166
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:6156

Subject: Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development?
> I've been programming for about seven years, and am basically=20
> self-taught. I got my first taste of writing code when trying do to =
some=20
> basic hacking on my (then) shiny new G3 iBook. (Even though it was a=20
> Mac, I was enthralled by its Unix underpinnings.) C was too hard for a =

> programming newbie, and (at the time) I only understood shell to be a=20
> sequential series of commands. (cd ~/.Trash; ls; rm *)
>=20
> My goal was to write desktop GUI apps, and looking around at the=20
> available languages, libraries, and toolkits for Unix and the Mac, I=20
> settled on Tk as the UI toolkit, since it seemed to be the simplest =
one=20
> out there, and on Tcl and Python as the programming languages. (A =
brief=20
> detour with AppleScript convinced me that it is a useful scripting=20
> language for hooking into various parts of OS X, but it is not very=20
> powerful.)
>=20
> While Tcl doesn't get a lot of love or respect on this list, it is =
quite=20
> powerful in its way, and an understanding of Tcl is quite useful in=20
> particular for understanding Tk and its Python wrapper, Tkinter. After =

> becoming productive with Tcl and writing a couple of applications in =
it,=20
> I turned to Python in earnest and set about learning its capabilities =
as=20
> well, and have since released a couple of Python desktop apps on the =
Mac=20
> (commercial apps, using Tk as the toolkit).
>=20
> With that background, here are my reasons for keeping Python in my =
toolbox:
>=20
> 1. Its core libraries and third-party packages address nearly every=20
> imaginable need. The size of its community is a real asset here. Tcl =
is=20
> a more compact language, with a smaller core library and fewer=20
> third-party packages (no library comparable to Mark Pilgrim's=20
> feedparser, for instance), which means that for some use cases, using=20
> Tcl would mean more work.
>=20
> 2. Python has excellent tools for deployment of desktop apps. Since I=20
> only work on the Mac, I'm not that familiar with py2exe, but py2app =
and=20
> bundlebuilder have always allowed me to wrap up my apps with an =
embedded=20
> Python interpreter with a minimum of fuss. Tcl also excels in =
deployment=20
> of desktop apps; other languages, such as Perl and Ruby, seem to lag=20
> behind in this respect. (I could find no actively-maintained,=20
> open-source, Mac-viable desktop app bundling tools for either Ruby or=20
> Perl, which cooled my interest in them considerably.)
>=20
> 3. Python's binding to Tk makes writing GUI apps a straightforward=20
> process. Since I already knew Tk quite well, learning its Python=20
> bindings was much simpler than learning another GUI toolkit such as =
PyQt=20
> or wxPython. The strategies I learned from Tcl to develop =
sophisticated=20
> Tk-based UI's translate quite well to Python.
>=20
> Python isn't perfect; for some instances, I find Tcl a more =
lightweight=20
> and accessible tool to use. I also spend a lot of time digging into =
Tcl=20
> and Tk's C API to extend their capabilities in certain ways; this also =

> allows my Python apps to access such enhancements, via Tkinter. But =
all=20
> in all I'm a happy user of Python, and it will continue to have a=20
> primary place in my toolbox.
>=20
> --Kevin


Hi Kevin,

Thanks for your message. It is helpful to know why some programmers =
prefer a certain OS, programming language, module or program, because =
this way the newbies can find its benefits rapidly.

Yes there are packiging solutions for Perl under Mac, but I haven't =
tried them because I never used a Mac, however, I agree that python is =
better than Perl for creating desktop apps, because the modules which =
are used for creating GUIs are better developed.

Too bad that you prefer Tk-based GUIs, because they are simple to use, I =
agree, but they create and promote discrimination because they are not =
accessible at all for the screen readers used by the blind.

The standard Win32 GUIS/MFC or the libs that use those GUIs like Java =
SWT and wxWIDGETS used by WxPerl, WxPython... are much better =
accessible. Somebody told that he will try to make Tk accessible, but =
just as I expected, I haven't heard anything until now about any kind of =
success of that project.

Octavian