has wrote:
> I think what's happening in this discussion is we've got two camps
> talking past one another.
>
> One side sees the problem primarily as a marketing issue: "How can we
> attract the widest possible audience, i.e. both serious and casual
> users?"
>
> The other sees it as a purely technical issue: "How can we provide
> the latest, best tools for the minimum amount of time and work?"
Well, no. The primary developers are primarily interested in the latest,
best tools, yes. But everyone involved in this conversation is trying
got figure out how best to market to casual users -- the truly serious
ones are all set.
> I have no problem with folk like Chris and Bob saying they're only
> interested in supporting serious comers.
That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm not interested in supporting the
totally casual newbie, but only because that's not a marketing issue. We
don't have the integrated IDE-GUI Toolkit-docs to support them. Let them
buy RealBasic or RuntimeRevolution, or whatever.
I am interested in supported users that are casual enough that they may
not have the Apple developer tools installed, but are interested in at
least learning to use the terminal and an editor a bit.
> and isn't intended to, appeal to all sections of the audience out
> there.
I think we can have a single approach that support everyone between the
"I'd like to learn a bit about the terminal" user to the "I'll compile
it myself, but I'd rather not, if there's a binary that meets my needs"
user with the same approach.
> If folk can agree on the latter approach, both camps should set up on
> the same website, and each look after their own sections of interest.
I don't think there is any problem here. Bob is responsible for the
pythonmac.org site, and He's made it very clear that he'd be glad to see
it updated for newbies, but he's not going to do the work. Fortunately,
Charles is ;-)
> As for the frontage, split it across the middle: top half for the
> cheery "let's introduce you to Python in 30 seconds" spiel; bottom
> half for"here be the hardcore haxxors; come be one with us if you
> think you're hard enough". And somewhere in the middle, you can have a
> Top 10 lists of why it's really worth upgrading to the latest and
> greatest Python et-al, providing a natural path for casual users to
> follow once we've got our hooks in 'em good and proper.
That's a pretty good structure.
I think the real debate here really boils down to one issue: What do we
present as the "standard" python to use on OS-X: the Apple supplied
python or the Framework build of 2.4.1. then of course, there's a lot of
details to be worked out.
However, I think a consensus is building:
-- define the Framework installer for 2.4 as the "standard" and most
supported python for OS-X. (the existing build for 10.3 and the
universal build for 10.4)
-- also provide at least a quick tutorial for newbies, based on the
built-in Python, and put a link to it near the top of the main page.
-- At the end of that tutorial, give an explanation of why (and when)
one might want to install the newer build of Python for further work.
Does anyone strongly disagree with this?
-Chris
--
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer
NOAA/OR&R/HAZMAT (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
