Your call, but as an active Wing user I will just point out that the company support their product very actively, if that helps.
regards Steve Steve Holden On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 3:18 AM, Andrew Janke <and...@apjanke.net> wrote: > > On 5/27/18 10:25 AM, Mats Wichmann wrote: > >> On 05/26/2018 12:22 PM, Andrew Janke wrote: >> >>> Good to go. I was able to edit the page. Thanks! >>> >>> Andrew >>> >>> Thanks for taking this on... someone motivated to pick a an IDE is the >> perfect candidate to update the tables. You even inspired me to make a >> few more changes! >> >> While we're here, there are links to a number of articles that compare >> IDEs. In this modern world, there appear to be an infinite number of >> "ten best" type articles, as, sadly, people have learned how effective >> they are as clickbait, so I'm not sure how to refresh this list, but I'm >> thinking that we should drop the older articles. The ones from 2000, >> 2005, even 2008 seem unlikely to be very applicable, as all of the >> surviving IDEs have evolved, and some (BlackAdder?) don't seem to have >> survived. Any objections if I kill a few? Andrew - if you found any >> useful comparsion article, please feel free to add, I'm just thinking we >> shouldn't add the dozens, maybe hundreds, of such comparisons that pop >> up if you ask a search engine. >> >> -- mats >> >> That makes sense. > > I have no useful comparison articles to add. I think one can smell the > difference between original content and a "ten best" clickbait listicle, > and all the decent original-content comparison articles I've found are > already in this Wiki entry. (E.g. this one that you have linked is a really > good one: https://xcorr.net/2013/04/17/evaluating-ides-for-scientific- > python/) Which is kind of sad because the last comparo article is from > 2013. > > At any rate, I also agree with not adding all the content-farm junk that > one finds in Google. > > IMHO, as far as old links on this article go, I'd say remove the link > that's for WingIDE specifically, but actually keep all the rest, even the > ones as old as 2000: those are good, content-deep articles, are of > historical interest, serve as examples of how to compare IDEs, and given > how slowly the Python IDE ecosystem seems to be evolving, are still > relevant. I found them all useful in my current efforts to learn about > Python IDEs. And some of these articles don't surface in a Google search > for "Python IDEs"; they're buried in "ten best" clickbait, so I think it's > still useful to have them collected in a list. > > Cheers, > Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > pydotorg-www mailing list > pydotorg-www@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pydotorg-www >
_______________________________________________ pydotorg-www mailing list pydotorg-www@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pydotorg-www