Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!newsfeed.freenet.ag!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.001 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'languages.': 0.04; 'subject:Open': 0.05; 'plenty': 0.07; 'twisted,': 0.07; 'measure': 0.09; 'python:': 0.09; 'subject:Source': 0.09; 'url:blog': 0.10; 'python': 0.11; 'growing,': 0.16; 'it."': 0.16; 'libraries.': 0.16; 'nowadays': 0.16; 'rarely': 0.16; 'received:74.55.86': 0.16; 'received:74.55.86.74': 0.16; 'received:smtp.webfaction.com': 0.16; 'received:webfaction.com': 0.16; 'stdlib.': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'looked': 0.18; 'trying': 0.19; 'it?s': 0.19; 'seems': 0.21; 'programming': 0.22; 'install': 0.23; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'library,': 0.24; 'loved': 0.24; 'math': 0.24; '(or': 0.24; "i've": 0.25; 'developers': 0.25; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'libraries': 0.31; 'mid': 0.31; 'node': 0.31; 'community': 0.33; '"the': 0.34; 'subject:the': 0.34; 'something': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'there': 0.35; 'really': 0.36; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'anything': 0.39; 'itself': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'how': 0.40; 'easy': 0.60; 'subject:The': 0.64; 'article': 0.77; "90's": 0.84; 'divide': 0.84; 'etc,': 0.84; 'serious': 0.97 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:25:25 -0400 From: Ned Batchelder User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: The node.js Community is Quietly Changing the Face of Open Source References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050804010006060705030402" X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 111 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1366129535 news.xs4all.nl 2567 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:44466 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:43680 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050804010006060705030402 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/16/2013 12:02 PM, Rodrick Brown wrote: > I came across this article which sums up some of the issues I have > with modern programming languages. I've never really looked at > Javascript for anything serious or Node itself but I found this > article really informational. > > "The "Batteries included" philosophy of Python was definitely the > right approach during the mid 90's and one of the reasons that I loved > Python so much; this was a time before modern package management, and > before it was easy to find and install community-created libraries. > Nowadays though I think it's counter-productive. Developers in the > community rarely want to bother trying to compete with the standard > library, so people are less likely to try to write libraries that > improve upon it." > > > http://caines.ca/blog/programming/the-node-js-community-is-quietly-changing-the-face-of-open-source/ > > I don't want to get into a package pissing match, but this math is just silly: *python*: 29,720 packages / 22 years =*1351 packages per year* *ruby*: 54,385 packages / 18 years = *3022 packages per year* *node.js* 26,966 packages / 4 years = *6742 packages per year * If you want to know how fast something is growing, you don't measure 22 years and divide by 22. You look at the number of packages added in the last year (or month). Also the assertion that people don't want to compete with the stdlib seems like pure supposition. There are plenty of well-loved packages that "compete" with the stdlib. Lxml, Requests, Twisted, etc, and plenty of packages in the stdlib that started as outside "competition". --Ned. --------------050804010006060705030402 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/16/2013 12:02 PM, Rodrick Brown wrote:
I came across this article which sums up some of the issues I have with modern programming languages. I've never really looked at Javascript for anything serious or Node itself but I found this article really informational. 

"The “Batteries included” philosophy of Python was definitely the right approach during the mid 90’s and one of the reasons that I loved Python so much; this was a time before modern package management, and before it was easy to find and install community-created libraries.  Nowadays though I think it’s counter-productive.  Developers in the community rarely want to bother trying to compete with the standard library, so people are less likely to try to write libraries that improve upon it."


http://caines.ca/blog/programming/the-node-js-community-is-quietly-changing-the-face-of-open-source/



I don't want to get into a package pissing match, but this math is just silly:

python:  29,720 packages / 22 years = 1351 packages per year

ruby:      54,385 packages / 18 years =    3022 packages per year

node.js  26,966 packages / 4 years =   6742 packages per year

If you want to know how fast something is growing, you don't measure 22 years and divide by 22.  You look at the number of packages added in the last year (or month).  Also the assertion that people don't want to compete with the stdlib seems like pure supposition.  There are plenty of well-loved packages that "compete" with the stdlib.  Lxml, Requests, Twisted, etc, and plenty of packages in the stdlib that started as outside "competition".

--Ned.
--------------050804010006060705030402--