Well, I don't happen to be a Perl user (yet), but isn't Python a
compiled and object-oriented version of Perl? Correct me if I am wrong.
As such, its niche is also understandable, and desireable.
Rich
"Greg A. Bur" wrote:
>
> I just finished reading an article about the 1.0 release of nano, ANOTHER
> text editor for Unix/Linux. My question is: "Does the Unix/Linux world
> really need more text editors?" One thing I really love about Linux is the
> fact that I have so many choices for tasks such as text editting, e-mail,
> image viewing or playing audio. What I hate is that it takes me an extra
> half hour to install a distribution because I have to remove all of the
> extraneous software that I have no use for. I understand that each one of us
> has our preferences as I've seen posts here in the past regarding the jed and
> joe editors. Why create ANOTHER text editor that looks like pico with some
> added features? I'm sure we've all heard the phrase "Why re-invent the
> wheel?" Why is it that it seems the Unix/Linux world spends so much time
> doing that? True, part of it is the overall "openness" of GNU and open
> source software, which I think is great. But why so much fanfare over
> another text editor. I'm no developer by any means granted I wish I had
> better programming skills so I could actively contribute more but I can't
> help but laugh when I read about another text editor. I still use Windows
> quite a bit for various tasks. I love Macromedia's Dreamweaver, Flash and
> Fireworks software but only the Gimp comes somewhat close in functionality
> and ease of use to Fireworks and there aren't any WYSIWYG HTML editors worth
> mentioning for Linux. Flash is limited to a plugin which works very well but
> I'd love to be able to work from one box instead of having to move to my
> windows system to work rather than play. Sure I could use my favorite text
> editor to design web sites and with a little more patience I could create
> some very nice graphics for them with the Gimp. I'd much rather open a
> program like Dreamweaver so I can create things visually and then tweak the
> code later. It seems that at times there is lack of innovation. My next
> bitch is along similar lines. How many scripting languages do we really
> need? Off the top of my head I can name bash, perl, python, tcl, and expect.
> I can see a use for bash and perl and maybe even tcl but I don't understand
> the point of python. Expect is very much designed for a certain niche but
> python just seems to be perl rehashed with a different name. I've also
> tinkered a bit with lisp and have removed many others. Perhaps because I
> haven't had a USE for these languages is why I feel there isn't a need for
> them but I can't help but think there are too many languages that do the same
> things. After glancing at the packages I chose NOT to install I notice there
> are eiffel, ruby, prolog, and haskell languages. I'm sure they all have
> their niche but what about niches other than programming? Maybe I'm out in
> left field but right now I just feel there is little focus when it comes to
> making Linux useful to more people. Again, as I said before I'm no developer
> and I truly wish I could help out more. I am by no means disappointed with
> what Linux has to offer. I am however disappointed in the lack of desktop
> software. Perhaps I'm just being impatient. Maybe what I'm wanting is a
> year or so down the road, who knows? Just my two cents.
>
> --
> Greg A. Bur
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.rivertown-computers.com
> All flames may be directed to /dev/null
