On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 10:34 am, Man with No Name wrote: > So.... > > I've an idea to make use of python's unique environment (>>>) to form a > peer-to-peer object-sharing ecosystem.
Sounds perfectly awful. By the way, Python's interactive interpreter (>>>) is hardly unique. Just off the top of my head, I can think of Lua, Julia, Clojure, Ruby, Haskell, Erlang, Rhino (Javascript), Scala, Boo, F# and PHP which all have either a standard interactive interpreter, or if not standard, at least a well-known one. Pretty much any programming language *could* have an interactive interpreter, if somebody spent the effort to build one. > Just pie-in-the-sky brainstorming... > > When a programmer (or object-user) starts up the python environment, the > environment can check for an internet connection and if present connect to a > central "name service" to provide a list of trusted peers which will form a > back-end, networked, data-object ecosystem. The day that my Python interpreter automatically connects to a peer-to-peer network of other people, "trusted" or not, to download code, will be the day I stop using the Python interpreter. [...] > Python would be breaking new ground, I think (.NET comes perhaps the closest) > for living up to the dream of OOP of a true re-useable object and programmer > ecosystem. The thing about re-useable software components is that it turns out that most of them aren't that re-useable. > I quite like the idea that vigil (see github) What is vigil, and what does it have to do with github? > offered for two keywords that > would offer a very nice contract environment for trusting other objects which > I think will be essential for standardizing objects across the ecosystem. What makes you think that "standardizing objects across the ecosystem" is something that should be done? Such a programming monoculture would be a terrible mistake. -- Steve “Cheer up,” they said, “things could be worse.” So I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list