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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #43684 > unrolled thread

Re: The node.js Community is Quietly Changing the Face of Open Source

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The node.js Community is Quietly Changing the Face of Open Source Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2013-04-16 11:50 -0500
    Re: The node.js Community is Quietly Changing the Face of Open Source rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-16 10:14 -0700
      Re: The node.js Community is Quietly Changing the Face of Open Source Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2013-04-16 12:36 -0500
        Re: The node.js Community is Quietly Changing the Face of Open Source rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-16 19:14 -0700
          Re: The node.js Community is Quietly Changing the Face of Open Source Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> - 2013-04-17 09:09 +0000

#43684 — Re: The node.js Community is Quietly Changing the Face of Open Source

On 2013.04.16 11:02, 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. 

I don't think the author really knows Python. I am not familiar with node.js, but I do know that it is not Python. Python's package
management is suboptimal (though it is being worked on), but the main reason to have "no dependencies" is that Python changes. Guess how
many people are using Python 3 (which was released over 4 years ago) and how many people are still using Python 2. The standard library just
works on the latest version, no matter how much changes - it /has/ to.
I find it somewhat amusing that he says that the standard library discourages better tools to compete with the standard library right after
mentioning requests, which is... a better tool to compete with the standard library. The idea that developers will rarely ever compete
against the standard library is absurd - we have not only requests to compete with the HTTP libraries, but also Twisted and greenlet and
Stackless to compete with the async libraries. It's also just plain dumb to have a bunch of libraries doing the same thing. If the standard
library isn't doing a good job, something will compete with it. If it is doing a good job, there is no reason to write a library to do the
same thing. With third-party libraries everywhere, there can easily be duplicate functionality where there doesn't need to be (there could
be silly bikeshed issues or perhaps one developer simply doesn't know about the other project). While the process can be slow, the standard
library will change. In fact, 3.4 is going to have a new async I/O library because asyncore and asynchat are just not good enough - after
all, that's why projects like Twisted started.
Perhaps having a minimal core works well for node.js, but Python is much, much better off having its batteries included.
-- 
CPython 3.3.0 | Windows NT 6.2.9200 / FreeBSD 9.1

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#43687

For javascript *the language* this is a good watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXEgk1Hdze0


However I believe that the language view is a bit dated.

On Apr 16, 9:50 pm, Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps having a minimal core works well for node.js, but Python is much, much better off having its
> batteries included.

Standalone this statement is hardly arguable.  However combine it with
your other statement

> Python's package  management is suboptimal (though it is being worked on),

and a different picture emerges, viz that *the ecosystem around the
language matters more than the language*

Ive talked about this  in my blog
http://blog.languager.org/2011/02/cs-education-is-fat-and-weak-1.html
and following
(Warning: CS teacher's bias)

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

#43691

On 2013.04.16 12:14, rusi wrote:
> However combine it with your other statement
> 
>> Python's package  management is suboptimal (though it is being worked on),
> 
> and a different picture emerges, viz that *the ecosystem around the
> language matters more than the language*
It was a minor point, and while I think the ecosystem is important, I am not arguing that it is more important than the language itself.
This discussion has much to do with ecosystems and little to do with languages, so I'm not sure what your point is here.
-- 
CPython 3.3.0 | Windows NT 6.2.9200 / FreeBSD 9.1

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

#43723

On Apr 16, 10:36 pm, Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2013.04.16 12:14, rusi wrote:> However combine it with your other statement
>
> >> Python's package  management is suboptimal (though it is being worked on),
>
> > and a different picture emerges, viz that *the ecosystem around the
> > language matters more than the language*
>
> It was a minor point, and while I think the ecosystem is important, I am not arguing that it is more important than the language itself.
> This discussion has much to do with ecosystems and little to do with languages, so I'm not sure what your point is here.

Just what I said: ecosystem matters.  We may or may not argue about
"more than language", but it surely matters. Some examples:

1. In the link that Roderick originally posted there is a long comment
that adds perl to the languages the author discussed. As a language
perl is… um well… its perl.  Yet when perl wins its because CPAN
wins.

2. Haskell as a language is very well designed. However its package
system -- cabal+hackage -- is completely broken.
Unfortunately more mindshare is taken in haskell to
-- fancy type sorcery
-- new syntax (eg holes)
-- compiling to more and more efficient code
-- etc
than setting right the package-mess. To be very correct here, its not
so much that cabal+hackage is a mess as that the haskell community
does not devote enough mindshare to it.

3. Linux: Steven was talking of the fact that firefox code is a mess.
I would wager that much of the code in heavy use in linux is a mess.
Yet linux works. Why? Apt.  Long before cloud-computng became a
buzzword, I could sit on my debian box and utter the incantation:
$ aptitude update; aptitude upgrade
and things would (mostly) keep working.

4. There was a recent question here: "How to install/uninstall
manpages with distutils/setuptools?" It seems to be a very basic
question. It's received no answer.  In case I am chided for fault-
finding without answering, let me say, I looked to see if I could
help.  Found nothing conclusive. Gave up.  If it makes me culpable, ok
I am contrite. Shouldn't the python community share some of the
contrition?

Terry wrote:
> The irony is that the author goes on to say that the node.js community
> 'works' because they all use the same infrastructure battery: git and
> git-hub ;-).

Its called the paradox of creativity: Constraints cultivate
creativity: http://www.keepwriting.com/tsc/paradox.htm

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

#43745

rusi <rustompmody <at> gmail.com> writes:
> 
> Just what I said: ecosystem matters.  We may or may not argue about
> "more than language", but it surely matters. Some examples:
> 
> 1. In the link that Roderick originally posted there is a long comment
> that adds perl to the languages the author discussed. As a language
> perl is… um well… its perl.  Yet when perl wins its because CPAN
> wins.
> 
> 2. Haskell as a language is very well designed. However its package
> system -- cabal+hackage -- is completely broken.

I think you are deluded. Haskell may very well designed from a language
theoretist's
point of view, but I suspect most average programmers would find it a hell
to code in.

Regards

Antoine.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web