Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #5859 > unrolled thread

Why did Quora choose Python for its development?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Beliavsky <beliavsky@aol.com> - 2011-05-20 09:39 -0700
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 23:47 +0300
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 15:01 +1000
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 10:44 +0300
      Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Ulrich Eckhardt <ulrich.eckhardt@dominolaser.com> - 2011-05-23 12:56 +0200
        Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-23 11:28 +0000
        Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 08:25 +0300
      Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Kevin Walzer <kw@codebykevin.com> - 2011-05-24 10:09 -0400
        Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 00:43 +1000
        Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 19:11 +0300
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Daniel Kluev <dan.kluev@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 19:20 +1100
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 15:47 +0300
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-05-22 12:09 -0700
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-05-22 18:01 -0400
      Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-05-22 18:55 -0500
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Daniel Kluev <dan.kluev@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 10:42 +1100
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 08:31 +0300
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 09:06 +0300
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 16:37 +1000
      Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-05-23 10:26 -0500
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-05-23 02:37 -0400
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Daniel Kluev <dan.kluev@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 19:05 +1100
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Aleksandar Radulovic <alex@a13x.net> - 2011-05-23 08:52 +0000
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 11:49 +0300
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 12:01 +0300
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 12:41 +0300
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Daniel Kluev <dan.kluev@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 20:58 +1100
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Daniel Kluev <dan.kluev@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 21:16 +1100
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 14:17 +0300
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Daniel Kluev <dan.kluev@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 22:32 +1100
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-05-23 13:08 -0400
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 22:05 +0300
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 14:10 +0300
      Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-05-24 00:17 -0500
        Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net> - 2011-05-24 06:09 -0400
          Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-05-24 11:52 -0500
            Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net> - 2011-05-24 13:39 -0400
              Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-05-24 13:17 -0500
                Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-05-27 15:48 +1200
                  Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-05-26 23:53 -0700
                  Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-05-27 09:47 -0400
                    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Karim <karim.liateni@free.fr> - 2011-05-27 22:10 +0200
              Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "thegist@nospam.net" <thegist@nospam.net> - 2011-05-25 17:30 -0400
                Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-25 23:52 +0000
                  Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "thegist@nospam.net" <thegist@nospam.net> - 2011-05-26 11:05 -0400
            Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 08:01 +1000
              Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-05-24 18:16 -0500
                Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 09:38 +1000
                  Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-05-24 20:48 -0500
              Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-05-25 09:31 +0200
                Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-05-25 07:01 -0500
                  Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-05-25 12:54 -0400
                  Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-05-25 10:17 -0700
                    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-05-25 14:14 -0500
                      Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Matty Sarro <msarro@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 17:19 -0400
                        Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2011-05-26 12:44 +0000
                          Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-05-26 08:51 -0400
                            Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-05-26 23:11 +1000
                          Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-26 13:35 +0000
                      Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? RainyDay <andrei.avk@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 17:15 -0700
                  Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-25 23:01 +0000
                    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-05-25 22:00 -0500
                      Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-05-26 14:25 +1000
                        Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-05-26 10:36 -0500
                          Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-05-26 16:03 -0400
                            Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-27 03:07 +0000
                              Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-05-27 10:10 +0200
                                Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-27 09:31 +0000
                                Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-05-27 10:12 -0700
                          Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Karim <karim.liateni@free.fr> - 2011-05-26 22:27 +0200
                      Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-05-26 09:18 -0700
                  Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-05-26 10:24 +0200
              Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-25 23:25 +0000
            Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-05-24 23:00 -0700
              Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-05-25 07:36 -0400
                Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 21:55 +1000
                  Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-05-25 08:25 -0400
                Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net> - 2011-05-25 10:23 -0400
                  Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-25 14:56 +0000
                    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Matty Sarro <msarro@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 11:43 -0400
                Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 00:26 +1000
        Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 19:10 +0300
        Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net> - 2011-05-24 13:22 -0400
        Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 11:08 +0300
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Daniel Kluev <dan.kluev@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 14:34 +1100
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 08:39 +0300
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 09:00 +0300
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> - 2011-05-24 08:23 +0200
      Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Kevin Walzer <kw@codebykevin.com> - 2011-05-24 10:50 -0400
        Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 19:18 +0300
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 11:10 +0300
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 18:20 +1000
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Daniel Kluev <dan.kluev@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 19:55 +1100
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net> - 2011-05-24 06:05 -0400
      Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2011-05-24 16:18 +0300
        Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-05-24 11:50 -0500
          Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 03:30 +1000
            Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-05-24 12:56 -0500
              Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 07:53 +1000
                Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-05-24 17:00 -0500
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 19:10 +0300
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 19:10 +0300
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? "thegist@nospam.net" <thegist@nospam.net> - 2011-05-26 11:52 -0400
    Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? Daniel Kluev <dan.kluev@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 08:33 +1100
      Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development? RainyDay <andrei.avk@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 16:41 -0700

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#6244

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:23 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net> wrote:
> The easiest way to remember was that the first two letters of INteger
> gave you the range.
>

G for Green and R for Right, which are the first two letters of Green.

(I wonder how many Pythonistas are familiar with that?)

Chris Angelico

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6153

From: "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net>

> On Tue, 24 May 2011 00:17:55 -0500
> John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
>> > $d = @a;
>> 
>> That will give you the number of elements in @a. What you (probably)
>> mean is %hash = @array;
> 
> If I was even considering using Perl, this one exchange would send me
> screaming in the opposite direction.


If you didn't consider to change the language you prefer it means that you are closed minded and use to fell in love with the tools you use.
Don't make me tell here how many things I don't like in Perl.
I use to tell those things on Perl mailing lists and make upset their members. :-)

Similarly, if you don't like something in Perl, why don't you tell them what you don't like to the Perl programmers community and not just have the guts to tell that in a group where the majority share your preferences.
I came here on the list to find good things about Python and to learn some things and use its good parts, and not to hear bashing about other programming languages.

Octavian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6161

On Tue, 24 May 2011 19:10:56 +0300
"Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If I was even considering using Perl, this one exchange would send me
> > screaming in the opposite direction.
> 
> If you didn't consider to change the language you prefer it means
> that you are closed minded and use to fell in love with the tools you

Now you are just bordering on rudeness.  I never made any disparaging
remarks about you.  I only talked about a tool that you seem to like
and I don't.  In fact, I did consider and investigate Perl many years
ago along with may other languages before I settled on Python.  I
didn't like it then and I don't like it now.  However, I have never
called someone "close minded" for preferring a different tool to me.

> Don't make me tell here how many things I don't like in Perl.

Trust me, there is no need.  

> I use to tell those things on Perl mailing lists and make upset their

Good for you.  I also have talked about things in Python that I don't
like on this list.  No one has ever accused me of being afraid to speak
my mind.  That facet of my personality has got me in a lot of trouble
in my life from parents, teachers, bosses and I have even been known to
speak out against the police while they were holding automatic rifles to
my head.  I doubt that there will ever be enough peer pressure on a
mailing list to trump that.

> Similarly, if you don't like something in Perl, why don't you tell
> them what you don't like to the Perl programmers community and not just
> have the guts to tell that in a group where the majority share your
> preferences.

Because I am not a missionary.  Someone came to my house and told me
why their way was better so I spoke up.  Same thing when the JW come to
my front door but I have no interest in going to their Kingdom Hall to
tell them why they are wrong.

> I came here on the list to find good things about Python and to learn
> some things and use its good parts, and not to hear bashing about other
> programming languages.

Same here but someone (I don't even know who started it) felt that it
was necessary to tell us all why their language was better.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net>         |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6168

From: "John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com>

> "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> From: "Daniel Kluev" <dan.kluev@gmail.com>
>> a = [1,2]
>> dict([a])
>>
>> Yes, but
>>
>> d = dict([a])
>>
>> is not so nice as
>>
>> $d = @a;
> 
> That will give you the number of elements in @a. What you (probably)
> mean is %hash = @array;


Of course. Thank you for correction.

Octavian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6110

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Octavian Rasnita <orasnita@gmail.com> wrote:
> is not so nice as
>
> $d = @a;

It is 'not so nice' only in your perception. Python clearly defines
dict as container of (key, value) pairs, and therefore its constructor
expects such pairs. Adding unjustified arbitrary ways to guess such
pairs out of linear list is exactly what is being bashed here. Is is
considered to be wrong and bad.

Moreover, you are comparing apples to oranges here, and then
complaining that apples somehow turned out to be not oranges.
If we take python way of defining dicts and check it in perl, we find
that it is not supported, so obviously perl is non-intuitive and does
not support clear and easy way of defining hashes from list of
key-value pairs:

@l = ([1, 2], [3, 4],);
%d = @l;
for $k ( keys %d ) { print "$k\n"; }

which outputs single ARRAY(0x804e158) instead of proper 1, 3, as it
does in python:

>>> dict([[1,2], [3,4]]).keys()
[1, 3]

This is yet another example that you are just trolling here, making
silly and unbacked claims, and ignoring any valid arguments you
receive.

-- 
With best regards,
Daniel Kluev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6116

From: "Daniel Kluev" <dan.kluev@gmail.com>
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Octavian Rasnita <orasnita@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> From: "Daniel Kluev" <dan.kluev@gmail.com>
>> Aha, so with other words that ORM doesn't have that feature.
>> DBIX::Class also use the DateTime module, but it can use it directly,
>> without needing to write more code for that, and it can also return
>> localized dates.
>
> Once again. ORMs return _python builtin type_. Localization is not
> their responsibility, and plugging it there is code bloat, rather than
> feature. Sure you may ask ORM to handle JSONRPC requests on its own,
> but ORM responsibility is to map RDBMS features to language objects.

Who said that? The ORM responsability is to map RDBMS to the objects you 
need, not to the language objects.
If the ORM can do that directly by just adding a configuration instead of 
needing to manually use of other modules, why is this bloat? You add that 
configuration only if you need it, not always, and it is much more simple.

> All good python packages limit their functionality to specific field,
> so you could choose one you prefer for each different task
> independently.


All the Perl modules do the same, but some of the Perl modules accept 
plugins that make easier the collaboration of different modules which are 
needed often, and the need of localizing the date is a feature used often.

>> without needing to load the DateTime module manually and to initialize 
>> the DateTime object manually...
>
> This is basically stating that you didn't read the code I posted.
> Where did you ever find "initialize the DateTime object manually"?
> Sorry, but its pointless to discuss anything if you don't want to even
> read properly examples you receive.


You told that you need to use another module for localizing the date because 
the ORM returns just a language date object that doesn't do that.


Octavian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6117

From: "Daniel Kluev" <dan.kluev@gmail.com>
> Moreover, you are comparing apples to oranges here, and then
> complaining that apples somehow turned out to be not oranges.
> If we take python way of defining dicts and check it in perl, we find
> that it is not supported, so obviously perl is non-intuitive and does
> not support clear and easy way of defining hashes from list of
> key-value pairs:
> @l = ([1, 2], [3, 4],);
> %d = @l;
> for $k ( keys %d ) { print "$k\n"; }
>
> which outputs single ARRAY(0x804e158) instead of proper 1, 3, as it
> does in python:
>
>>>> dict([[1,2], [3,4]]).keys()
> [1, 3]
>
> This is yet another example that you are just trolling here, making
> silly and unbacked claims, and ignoring any valid arguments you
> receive.


You are showing a code but tell another thing. If it would be as you said, I 
should have said that if in Perl a dictionary is made from a list using
%d = @l;

then in Python it should be
l = d

because it would be more nice. But I didn't say that. I said that it would 
be nice to be able to use something like
d = dict(l)

using the Python "dict" statement for creating dicts.

And OK, Python needs another pair of brackets for doing that and this is no 
problem, but the result is that the Python's syntax is not as shorter and 
nice as Perl's, for the same thing.
This is what that I said.

And you are telling that in Perl should be used an even more complicated and 
ugly syntax just for beeing the same as in Python just for showing that I am 
wrong, but I was comparing just the shortness and cleraness of the code.

So, again, in Perl is just:

%d = @l;

Please tell me if Python has a syntax which is more clear than this for 
doing this thing.
It doesn't matter if it is different or if it follows another syntax.

And again, I am not trolling anything. I am just defending a language which 
has a clearer syntax for doing some things, and a shorter code for other 
things, and which uses less braces and brackets than Python for other 
things, and which has a single-recommended way for doing some things, even 
though other list members were trolling about Perl, but nobody said 
something against.

Octavian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6118

Beliavsky, 20.05.2011 18:39:
> I thought this essay on why one startup chose Python was interesting.

Since everyone seems to be hot flaming at their pet languages in this 
thread, let me quickly say this:

Thanks for sharing the link.

Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6141

On 5/24/11 2:23 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Beliavsky, 20.05.2011 18:39:
>> I thought this essay on why one startup chose Python was interesting.
>
> Since everyone seems to be hot flaming at their pet languages in this
> thread, let me quickly say this:
>
> Thanks for sharing the link.
>
> Stefan
>

I kind of thought that other posters might also chime in on why they 
chose Python instead of <insert other language here>. Since no one else 
has, I'll bite.

I've been programming for about seven years, and am basically 
self-taught. I got my first taste of writing code when trying do to some 
basic hacking on my (then) shiny new G3 iBook. (Even though it was a 
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 
sequential series of commands. (cd ~/.Trash; ls; rm *)

My goal was to write desktop GUI apps, and looking around at the 
available languages, libraries, and toolkits for Unix and the Mac, I 
settled on Tk as the UI toolkit, since it seemed to be the simplest one 
out there, and on Tcl and Python as the programming languages. (A brief 
detour with AppleScript convinced me that it is a useful scripting 
language for hooking into various parts of OS X, but it is not very 
powerful.)

While Tcl doesn't get a lot of love or respect on this list, it is quite 
powerful in its way, and an understanding of Tcl is quite useful in 
particular for understanding Tk and its Python wrapper, Tkinter. After 
becoming productive with Tcl and writing a couple of applications in it, 
I turned to Python in earnest and set about learning its capabilities as 
well, and have since released a couple of Python desktop apps on the Mac 
(commercial apps, using Tk as the toolkit).

With that background, here are my reasons for keeping Python in my toolbox:

1. Its core libraries and third-party packages address nearly every 
imaginable need. The size of its community is a real asset here. Tcl is 
a more compact language, with a smaller core library and fewer 
third-party packages (no library comparable to Mark Pilgrim's 
feedparser, for instance), which means that for some use cases, using 
Tcl would mean more work.

2. Python has excellent tools for deployment of desktop apps. Since I 
only work on the Mac, I'm not that familiar with py2exe, but py2app and 
bundlebuilder have always allowed me to wrap up my apps with an embedded 
Python interpreter with a minimum of fuss. Tcl also excels in deployment 
of desktop apps; other languages, such as Perl and Ruby, seem to lag 
behind in this respect. (I could find no actively-maintained, 
open-source, Mac-viable desktop app bundling tools for either Ruby or 
Perl, which cooled my interest in them considerably.)

3. Python's binding to Tk makes writing GUI apps a straightforward 
process. Since I already knew Tk quite well, learning its Python 
bindings was much simpler than learning another GUI toolkit such as PyQt 
or wxPython. The strategies I learned from Tcl to develop sophisticated 
Tk-based UI's translate quite well to Python.

Python isn't perfect; for some instances, I find Tcl a more lightweight 
and accessible tool to use. I also spend a lot of time digging into Tcl 
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 
in all I'm a happy user of Python, and it will continue to have a 
primary place in my toolbox.

--Kevin

-- 
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin
http://www.codebykevin.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6156

Subject: Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development?
> I've been programming for about seven years, and am basically 
> self-taught. I got my first taste of writing code when trying do to some 
> basic hacking on my (then) shiny new G3 iBook. (Even though it was a 
> 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 
> sequential series of commands. (cd ~/.Trash; ls; rm *)
> 
> My goal was to write desktop GUI apps, and looking around at the 
> available languages, libraries, and toolkits for Unix and the Mac, I 
> settled on Tk as the UI toolkit, since it seemed to be the simplest one 
> out there, and on Tcl and Python as the programming languages. (A brief 
> detour with AppleScript convinced me that it is a useful scripting 
> language for hooking into various parts of OS X, but it is not very 
> powerful.)
> 
> While Tcl doesn't get a lot of love or respect on this list, it is quite 
> powerful in its way, and an understanding of Tcl is quite useful in 
> particular for understanding Tk and its Python wrapper, Tkinter. After 
> becoming productive with Tcl and writing a couple of applications in it, 
> I turned to Python in earnest and set about learning its capabilities as 
> well, and have since released a couple of Python desktop apps on the Mac 
> (commercial apps, using Tk as the toolkit).
> 
> With that background, here are my reasons for keeping Python in my toolbox:
> 
> 1. Its core libraries and third-party packages address nearly every 
> imaginable need. The size of its community is a real asset here. Tcl is 
> a more compact language, with a smaller core library and fewer 
> third-party packages (no library comparable to Mark Pilgrim's 
> feedparser, for instance), which means that for some use cases, using 
> Tcl would mean more work.
> 
> 2. Python has excellent tools for deployment of desktop apps. Since I 
> only work on the Mac, I'm not that familiar with py2exe, but py2app and 
> bundlebuilder have always allowed me to wrap up my apps with an embedded 
> Python interpreter with a minimum of fuss. Tcl also excels in deployment 
> of desktop apps; other languages, such as Perl and Ruby, seem to lag 
> behind in this respect. (I could find no actively-maintained, 
> open-source, Mac-viable desktop app bundling tools for either Ruby or 
> Perl, which cooled my interest in them considerably.)
> 
> 3. Python's binding to Tk makes writing GUI apps a straightforward 
> process. Since I already knew Tk quite well, learning its Python 
> bindings was much simpler than learning another GUI toolkit such as PyQt 
> or wxPython. The strategies I learned from Tcl to develop sophisticated 
> Tk-based UI's translate quite well to Python.
> 
> Python isn't perfect; for some instances, I find Tcl a more lightweight 
> and accessible tool to use. I also spend a lot of time digging into Tcl 
> 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 
> in all I'm a happy user of Python, and it will continue to have a 
> primary place in my toolbox.
> 
> --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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6119

From: "Stefan Behnel" <stefan_ml@behnel.de>
> Beliavsky, 20.05.2011 18:39:
>> I thought this essay on why one startup chose Python was interesting.
> 
> Since everyone seems to be hot flaming at their pet languages in this 
> thread, let me quickly say this:
> 
> Thanks for sharing the link.


Maybe I have missed a message, but if I didn't, please provide that link.
I am always interested to find the best solutions.

Thanks.

Octavian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6120

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Octavian Rasnita <orasnita@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: "Stefan Behnel" <stefan_ml@behnel.de>
>>
>> Beliavsky, 20.05.2011 18:39:
>>>
>>> I thought this essay on why one startup chose Python was interesting.
>>
>> Since everyone seems to be hot flaming at their pet languages in this
>> thread, let me quickly say this:
>>
>> Thanks for sharing the link.
>
>
> Maybe I have missed a message, but if I didn't, please provide that link.
> I am always interested to find the best solutions.

At the beginning of the thread, three days and forty-odd messages ago,
this was posted:

http://www.quora.com/Why-did-Quora-choose-Python-for-its-development

It's the reason for the thread title, regardless of the current thread
content :)

Chris Angelico

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6124

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Octavian Rasnita <orasnita@gmail.com> wrote:
> And you are telling that in Perl should be used an even more complicated and
> ugly syntax just for beeing the same as in Python just for showing that I am
> wrong, but I was comparing just the shortness and cleraness of the code.
>
> So, again, in Perl is just:
>
> %d = @l;

Once again. Suppose we have array of key-value pairs (two-dimensional
array), `l`. In python, converting it to dict is as simple as d =
dict(l). In perl, %d = @l; produces meaningless value. Following your
logic, this means that perl has ugly syntax.

-- 
With best regards,
Daniel Kluev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6129

On Tue, 24 May 2011 09:00:14 +0300
"Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, again, in Perl is just:
> 
> %d = @l;
> 
> Please tell me if Python has a syntax which is more clear than this for 
> doing this thing.

How is that clear?  "Shorter" != "clearer."  A Python programmer
looking at that sees line noise.  A Perl programmer looking at "d = dict
([a])" (or even "d = dict(a,)") sees something that has something to do
with creating a dictionary.  At least he would know in which section of
the manual to look for more information.

> And again, I am not trolling anything. I am just defending a language which 
> has a clearer syntax for doing some things, and a shorter code for other 

Are Perl programmers aware of some imminent worldwide shortage of
electrons that Python programmers are not?  Why is there this obsession
with shortness?

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net>         |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6136

* 2011-05-24T06:05:35-04:00 * D'Arcy J. M. Cain wrote:

> On Tue, 24 May 2011 09:00:14 +0300
> "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> wrote:
>> %d = @l;
>> 
>> Please tell me if Python has a syntax which is more clear than this
>> for doing this thing.
>
> How is that clear? "Shorter" != "clearer." A Python programmer looking
> at that sees line noise.

I'm a Lisp programmer who sees (some) Python code as line noise.

>> I am just defending a language which has a clearer syntax for doing
>> some things, and a shorter code for other
>
> Are Perl programmers aware of some imminent worldwide shortage of
> electrons that Python programmers are not? Why is there this obsession
> with shortness?

I don't know but from the point of view of a Lisp programmer Python has
the same obsession. Not trolling, I just wanted to point out that these
are just point of views. I don't actually care that much about these
things.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6157

Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> writes:

> * 2011-05-24T06:05:35-04:00 * D'Arcy J. M. Cain wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 May 2011 09:00:14 +0300
>> "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> %d = @l;
>>> 
>>> Please tell me if Python has a syntax which is more clear than this
>>> for doing this thing.
>>
>> How is that clear? "Shorter" != "clearer." A Python programmer looking
>> at that sees line noise.
>
> I'm a Lisp programmer who sees (some) Python code as line noise.

Exactly, and glad to see there are also non-extremists in this group.

I have been programming Perl for well over 17 years. I've been trying to
switch to Python /several times/ but yet, with all its shortcomings Perl
somehow still suits me better. To D'Arcy and other Pythonistas --
doesn't that sound like an extermistic organization or what -- it might
look like a cat had an accident involving a keyboard but to me, and all
those other people who do enjoy coding Perl it's beauty.

The whole Python is so beatiful & perfect sounds to me like people who
have embraced the latin alphabet calling Devanagari unreadable chicken
scratches made by backwards and poor people. To me it's a writing system
of beauty.

> I don't know but from the point of view of a Lisp programmer Python has
> the same obsession. Not trolling, I just wanted to point out that these
> are just point of views. I don't actually care that much about these
> things.

Wise words. And I agree. To me Python vs. Perl has nothing to do with
being a fanboy (unlike many other posters here). I like both languages,
I have invested a lot of time in learning Python and I am really not
dense. Yet, even though I can program in Python sufficient enough very
often I just pick Perl. Now why is that?

-- 
John Bokma                                                               j3b

Blog: http://johnbokma.com/        Perl Consultancy: http://castleamber.com/
Perl for books:    http://johnbokma.com/perl/help-in-exchange-for-books.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6162

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:50 AM, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
> Wise words. And I agree. To me Python vs. Perl has nothing to do with
> being a fanboy (unlike many other posters here). I like both languages,
> I have invested a lot of time in learning Python and I am really not
> dense. Yet, even though I can program in Python sufficient enough very
> often I just pick Perl. Now why is that?

To me, a language is a tool. The more tools you have competence with,
the easier it will be to select the right one for any job. There are
very few tools that have no use whatsoever; even Ook might be useful
(although I have yet to be asked to port any code to OrangutanOS).
This differs from the notion of having ten paradigms in one language,
in that most source files will identify themselves fairly early on
(possibly even out-of-band, such as filename extensions).

Chris Angelico

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6165

Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:50 AM, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
>> Wise words. And I agree. To me Python vs. Perl has nothing to do with
>> being a fanboy (unlike many other posters here). I like both languages,
>> I have invested a lot of time in learning Python and I am really not
>> dense. Yet, even though I can program in Python sufficient enough very
>> often I just pick Perl. Now why is that?
>
> To me, a language is a tool.

To me, and to a lot of Perl programmers it's not different.

> The more tools you have competence with, the easier it will be to
> select the right one for any job. There are very few tools that have
> no use whatsoever; even Ook might be useful (although I have yet to be
> asked to port any code to OrangutanOS).  This differs from the notion
> of having ten paradigms in one language,

If this is referring to Perl: the myths surrounding "there is more than
one way" are even more crazy than "there is only one way", maybe because
"more than one" makes it so much easier to make those myths up?

On top of that: how many paradigms does Python support?  And which
paradigms does Perl support and Python doesn't?

Roughly there are two dialects of Perl [1]: what people who never took the
time to learn it write, and the rest. Also, having more than one way to
code something doesn't mean that there are no preferrences. Python has
also several ways to do certain things; yet most skilled programmers
have a preference for one way. It's not that different with Perl; in my
experience exactly the same even.

Of course one can say a lot about Perl; I can. But I have never had a
rough time reading someone else's code, unless the person had no clue
about programming to begin with [2].

If Perl is really such a disaster, why are people using it? Or are they
all short-sighted idiots who don't know better? Several Perl programmers
I know, including myself, are fully aware of Python and other
programming languages. Yet, somehow they still program in Perl...

[1] http://www.bofh.org.uk/2010/07/25/a-tale-of-two-languages
[2] I once had to port a piece of Pascal code and after some studying it
    turned out that the 100+ lines or so did some variant of bubble sort 
    and near the end reversed the order in a separate loop.

-- 
John Bokma                                                               j3b

Blog: http://johnbokma.com/        Perl Consultancy: http://castleamber.com/
Perl for books:    http://johnbokma.com/perl/help-in-exchange-for-books.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6175

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:56 AM, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> writes:
>> To me, a language is a tool.
>
> To me, and to a lot of Perl programmers it's not different.
>
>> The more tools you have competence with, the easier it will be to
>> select the right one for any job. There are very few tools that have
>> no use whatsoever; even Ook might be useful (although I have yet to be
>> asked to port any code to OrangutanOS).  This differs from the notion
>> of having ten paradigms in one language,
>
> If this is referring to Perl: the myths surrounding "there is more than
> one way" are even more crazy than "there is only one way", maybe because
> "more than one" makes it so much easier to make those myths up?
>
> On top of that: how many paradigms does Python support?  And which
> paradigms does Perl support and Python doesn't?

You miss my point. To me, BOTH Perl AND Python are tools; there is a
time and a place for each. Also in my toolkit are C, C++, Pike, REXX,
&c, &c, &c. Even Java and ActionScript/Flash (both of which I detest
for several reasons) have their place - browser-based applications
that aren't limited to HTTP (try writing an in-browser MUD client in
Javascript). Every language has its downsides; every language has its
unique feature that makes it special. And every language I've ever
used has taught me something.

Know both. Bash both (if you feel so inclined). Use both.

Chris Angelico

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6177

Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:56 AM, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
>> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> writes:
>>> To me, a language is a tool.
>>
>> To me, and to a lot of Perl programmers it's not different.
>>
>>> The more tools you have competence with, the easier it will be to
>>> select the right one for any job. There are very few tools that have
>>> no use whatsoever; even Ook might be useful (although I have yet to be
>>> asked to port any code to OrangutanOS).  This differs from the notion
>>> of having ten paradigms in one language,
>>
>> If this is referring to Perl: the myths surrounding "there is more than
>> one way" are even more crazy than "there is only one way", maybe because
>> "more than one" makes it so much easier to make those myths up?
>>
>> On top of that: how many paradigms does Python support?  And which
>> paradigms does Perl support and Python doesn't?
>
> You miss my point.

Could be, English is my second language. But to me "ten paradigms in one
language" smelled of Perl bashing (or maybe Falcon bashing). My
apologies if that was not the intent.

> To me, BOTH Perl AND Python are tools; there is a time and a place for
> each. Also in my toolkit are C, C++, Pike, REXX, &c, &c, &c. Even Java
> and ActionScript/Flash (both of which I detest for several reasons)
> have their place - browser-based applications that aren't limited to
> HTTP (try writing an in-browser MUD client in Javascript). Every
> language has its downsides; every language has its unique feature that
> makes it special. And every language I've ever used has taught me
> something.
>
> Know both. Bash both (if you feel so inclined). Use both.

Can't agree more with you, thanks for the clarification.

-- 
John Bokma                                                               j3b

Blog: http://johnbokma.com/        Perl Consultancy: http://castleamber.com/
Perl for books:    http://johnbokma.com/perl/help-in-exchange-for-books.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web