Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Which brings me to my point. Rather than trying to bandage Python to
>> do what you want - and what, based on this thread, a lot of other
>> people *don't* want - you should be building a system from the ground
>> up to support the kind of B&D environment you want.
> Heh, that goes against the principle that Python is supposed to be
> good for everything.
And where did you run into that principle? I've certainly never heard
it before. It's pretty silly principle, as no language is good for
everything. Python is general-purpose, meaning that it's not limited
to a small set of problem areas, and that it probably won't be to bad
for most uses. But that's not the same thing as being "good" for
everything.
Now, one of Python's strengths is that it can glue other applications
together. So you can, for instance, write your application-specific
code in a language suitable for that problem domain, then wrap those
objects for use in a python interpreter - which is very popular in
scientific circles - and optionally embed the interpeter in your
application so you can invoke scripts as a fundamental part of your
application. This makes it possible to deal with that application area
with Python - but it doesn't mean Python is good for writing code for
that application; just that it's good for wrapping other languages.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
