Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Mellon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Nov 22, 2007 3:04 PM, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> / Chime Mode >> I have, in fact, sent this thread to my friend. >> His limiting factors are >> >> - money-control people favor MS platforms >> - C# and VS have minimal cost impact for academia >> - sys admins have everything locked down (probably >> essential for high school and community college) >> - both Python 2.4.2, then 2.5.1, on XP and Win2k >> crashed approx 10% of lab cptrs, so lab techs refused >> to allow further install of any 'third-party' s/w. >> (side note - I have installed Python and all the >> supporting stuff for PyVISA on 14 work-site (11 XP, 3 >> Debian) cptrs with no problem, so I do not understand). >> - no such thing as TAs in JC or HS. >> - CS instructors, for the effected schools, are not >> allowed to config machines or admin the network. >> - money-control people want students to learn skills >> that are on the IT buzz-word list. >> - my friend is no longer allowed to use me as an >> 'unofficial' assistant in these classes (not considered >> qualified because I only have a B.S. degree), so he >> only uses stuff that existing staff are (supposedly) >> familiar with... >> / Chime Mode >> >> I told my friend, the wannabe Python instructor, to >> walk away from any more volunteer work, and stick to >> the paid stuff. American education, what a mess... >> > > >Pretty unfortunate stuff, especially that he doesn't have any >permission to configure the machines for his course. These are all >(mostly?) political problems in his specific situation, though, not >issues with Python per se - except in the general sense that Python >doesn't get much respect. > >Except possibly the crashes, although honestly public school computer >labs tend to be incredibly hostile environments (admin lockdowns >notwithstanding). > >Support for even mildly off the beaten track thinking is in short >supply in most schools, I'm sad to hear of your friends problems. When you install Microsoft software,like C#/.NET,and it fails, this is percieved as your problem. You did not have the skills required to do the job. When you fail to install third party software, like Python, this is percieved to be a problem with the software package. The people building it did not have the skills required to do the job properly. Microsoft has this teflon effect. Never their fault that things do not work as expected. Jacob -- -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
On Nov 22, 2007 3:04 PM, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > / Chime Mode > I have, in fact, sent this thread to my friend. > His limiting factors are > > - money-control people favor MS platforms > - C# and VS have minimal cost impact for academia > - sys admins have everything locked down (probably > essential for high school and community college) > - both Python 2.4.2, then 2.5.1, on XP and Win2k > crashed approx 10% of lab cptrs, so lab techs refused > to allow further install of any 'third-party' s/w. > (side note - I have installed Python and all the > supporting stuff for PyVISA on 14 work-site (11 XP, 3 > Debian) cptrs with no problem, so I do not understand). > - no such thing as TAs in JC or HS. > - CS instructors, for the effected schools, are not > allowed to config machines or admin the network. > - money-control people want students to learn skills > that are on the IT buzz-word list. > - my friend is no longer allowed to use me as an > 'unofficial' assistant in these classes (not considered > qualified because I only have a B.S. degree), so he > only uses stuff that existing staff are (supposedly) > familiar with... > / Chime Mode > > I told my friend, the wannabe Python instructor, to > walk away from any more volunteer work, and stick to > the paid stuff. American education, what a mess... > Pretty unfortunate stuff, especially that he doesn't have any permission to configure the machines for his course. These are all (mostly?) political problems in his specific situation, though, not issues with Python per se - except in the general sense that Python doesn't get much respect. Except possibly the crashes, although honestly public school computer labs tend to be incredibly hostile environments (admin lockdowns notwithstanding). Support for even mildly off the beaten track thinking is in short supply in most schools, I'm sad to hear of your friends problems. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
On Nov 22, 2007 1:04 PM, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > / Chime Mode > I have, in fact, sent this thread to my friend. > His limiting factors are > > - money-control people favor MS platforms > - C# and VS have minimal cost impact for academia > - sys admins have everything locked down (probably > essential for high school and community college) > - both Python 2.4.2, then 2.5.1, on XP and Win2k > crashed approx 10% of lab cptrs, so lab techs refused > to allow further install of any 'third-party' s/w. > (side note - I have installed Python and all the > supporting stuff for PyVISA on 14 work-site (11 XP, 3 > Debian) cptrs with no problem, so I do not understand). > - no such thing as TAs in JC or HS. > - CS instructors, for the effected schools, are not > allowed to config machines or admin the network. > - money-control people want students to learn skills > that are on the IT buzz-word list. > - my friend is no longer allowed to use me as an > 'unofficial' assistant in these classes (not considered > qualified because I only have a B.S. degree), so he > only uses stuff that existing staff are (supposedly) > familiar with... > / Chime Mode > > I told my friend, the wannabe Python instructor, to > walk away from any more volunteer work, and stick to > the paid stuff. American education, what a mess... > > luck, > Brian > > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > Wow... Sounds like in this instance (and probably most such cases), none of the problems are really python related. Just a stupid institution thing. Everyone uses MS because it's what they are used to, and MS pays a lot to keep it this way. The only somewhat valid strike against python is the crashing, which is a real WTF. My guess is that python was not the cause of the crashes, and the admins assumed so since they were prejudiced against it. I had python crash at school pretty much immediately after installing it, but guess what - other people in the same lab have their vista computers crash frequently without installing python. Uh, maybe microsoft and their crappy vista OS is to blame... Oh, and I told the admins about the crashes and they said they have never seen them crash. ... Ok. How come every time I come into lab and turn the computer on it gives me the "your computer had a problem, do you want me to send data to microsoft about it?". Lol. I still think that python does inherently have some issues with regard to teaching it in a classroom setting, but it's mostly minor quibbles. Obviously in America, the main problem is we just can't possibly hope to displace the juggernaut. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Nov 17, 8:25 am, Donn Ingle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If you are online and the app runs, it can check the "freshness" of your >> modules (those called from the app and recursively) and offer to fetch the >> latest stable versions. >> > > Something similar to Java's webstart? Implement an __import__ hook > that downloads and caches the latest (stable) versions of libraries as > needed. I'm not too involved yet, but I have this association with what you wrote: http://plone.org/documentation/tutorial/buildout I guess that this could be adapted/used in other cases as well, as $ paster create --list-templates Available templates: basic_namespace:A project with a namespace package basic_package: A basic setuptools-enabled package basic_zope: A Zope project nested_namespace: A project with two nested namespaces. paste_deploy: A web application deployed through paste.deploy ...some more plone stuff here... doesn't list only Zope&Plone stuff. But then I also don't know Java's webstart, so... Best, --Toni++ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
"Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Nov 20, 2007 2:43 PM, John J. Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> [...] >> > These modules exist, but aren't that common. Certainly anything you're >> > likely to be using in an introductory compsci course is well packaged. >> > And even if it's not, it's really not that hard to create packages or >> > installers - a days work of course prep would take care of the >> > potential problem. >> >> "A day's worth of course prep" for beginners would let them debug all >> the crap that building MySQLdb on Windows might throw at them, for >> example? I think not! (MySQLdb, last time I looked, was one of the >> not-so-obscure modules that don't have a Windows installer available >> and kept up to date. Maybe it does now, but that's not really the >> point.) >> > > A days worth of course prep would allow the professor (or his TA, more > likely) to produce a set of installers that's suitable for use with > the course. This is a comp sci course, not a "how to sysadmin a Python > installation" course. Ah, sorry, misread what you wrote. I made the same point in my next paragraph, so perhaps the misunderstanding's mutual :-) > For the record, it took me less than 3 minutes to install MySqldb, the > first time I've ever needed to do it - I don't like or approve of > MySql. Steps required: Google for "mysql python" and click through 3 > or 4 links to the SF download page. Download the binary installer, > from March 2007. Not exactly rocket science. That's great, though I don't see the connection with what I wrote. Within the last year or so (IIRC) a MySQLdb Windows installer was not available. And ISTR grumpy noises coming from the corner of the ReportLab office where AFAIK the only Windows binary publically available shortly thereafter was built -- albeit an unofficial, unsupported binary. So I guess the fact that the MySQLdb maintainer wasn't (isn't?) a Windows user didn't make the build process silky- smooth ;-) My point was that it's by no means unheard of for popular Python modules to be unavailable as Windows binary installers. > On a similar note, I have or create executable installers for all the > third party modules I use, because I need to provide them to the > people who do our deployments. This has never been much of a burden. [...] That's nice too. Other people have not found it so easy. OTOH, ISTR that current MinGW / MSYS / Python / distutils make it easier for people who don't have the appropriate MS compiler, so perhaps the situation has improved over the last 12 months... John -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
Chris Mellon wrote: > On Nov 20, 2007 2:43 PM, John J. Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> [...] >>> These modules exist, but aren't that common. Certainly anything you're >>> likely to be using in an introductory compsci course is well packaged. >>> And even if it's not, it's really not that hard to create packages or >>> installers - a days work of course prep would take care of the >>> potential problem. >> "A day's worth of course prep" for beginners would let them debug all >> the crap that building MySQLdb on Windows might throw at them, for >> example? I think not! (MySQLdb, last time I looked, was one of the >> not-so-obscure modules that don't have a Windows installer available >> and kept up to date. Maybe it does now, but that's not really the >> point.) >> > A days worth of course prep would allow the professor (or his TA, more > likely) to produce a set of installers that's suitable for use with > the course. This is a comp sci course, not a "how to sysadmin a Python > installation" course. > > For the record, it took me less than 3 minutes to install MySqldb, the > first time I've ever needed to do it - I don't like or approve of > MySql. Steps required: Google for "mysql python" and click through 3 > or 4 links to the SF download page. Download the binary installer, > from March 2007. Not exactly rocket science. > > On a similar note, I have or create executable installers for all the > third party modules I use, because I need to provide them to the > people who do our deployments. This has never been much of a burden. > >> I certainly don't recognise what some people have been saying, though. >> It's a rare thing that I have any real pain installing a Python module >> on Linux. That's not to say you don't need some background knowledge >> about distributions and Python if doing it "by hand", of course >> (rather than with a packaging tool like apt-get). Occasionally you'll >> want the newest version of something, which will in turn occasionally >> get you into some grim automake issue or similar. But all of this can >> be entirely avoided in an introductory course -- simply restrict >> yourself to what can be installed with apt-get (if the instructor >> feels they *must* make some new library available, they can always >> package it themselves). >> > The obstacles as presented in the OP seem pretty bogus to me. Of > course, it's third hand anecdotal evidence, so there's not much of a > reason to believe that the original statement really preserves the > essence of the problem. > > I'd be pretty interested if the OP could ask his associate to chime in > with some of the actual issues he encountered / Chime Mode I have, in fact, sent this thread to my friend. His limiting factors are - money-control people favor MS platforms - C# and VS have minimal cost impact for academia - sys admins have everything locked down (probably essential for high school and community college) - both Python 2.4.2, then 2.5.1, on XP and Win2k crashed approx 10% of lab cptrs, so lab techs refused to allow further install of any 'third-party' s/w. (side note - I have installed Python and all the supporting stuff for PyVISA on 14 work-site (11 XP, 3 Debian) cptrs with no problem, so I do not understand). - no such thing as TAs in JC or HS. - CS instructors, for the effected schools, are not allowed to config machines or admin the network. - money-control people want students to learn skills that are on the IT buzz-word list. - my friend is no longer allowed to use me as an 'unofficial' assistant in these classes (not considered qualified because I only have a B.S. degree), so he only uses stuff that existing staff are (supposedly) familiar with... / Chime Mode I told my friend, the wannabe Python instructor, to walk away from any more volunteer work, and stick to the paid stuff. American education, what a mess... luck, Brian -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
On Nov 20, 2007 2:43 PM, John J. Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [...] > > These modules exist, but aren't that common. Certainly anything you're > > likely to be using in an introductory compsci course is well packaged. > > And even if it's not, it's really not that hard to create packages or > > installers - a days work of course prep would take care of the > > potential problem. > > "A day's worth of course prep" for beginners would let them debug all > the crap that building MySQLdb on Windows might throw at them, for > example? I think not! (MySQLdb, last time I looked, was one of the > not-so-obscure modules that don't have a Windows installer available > and kept up to date. Maybe it does now, but that's not really the > point.) > A days worth of course prep would allow the professor (or his TA, more likely) to produce a set of installers that's suitable for use with the course. This is a comp sci course, not a "how to sysadmin a Python installation" course. For the record, it took me less than 3 minutes to install MySqldb, the first time I've ever needed to do it - I don't like or approve of MySql. Steps required: Google for "mysql python" and click through 3 or 4 links to the SF download page. Download the binary installer, from March 2007. Not exactly rocket science. On a similar note, I have or create executable installers for all the third party modules I use, because I need to provide them to the people who do our deployments. This has never been much of a burden. > I certainly don't recognise what some people have been saying, though. > It's a rare thing that I have any real pain installing a Python module > on Linux. That's not to say you don't need some background knowledge > about distributions and Python if doing it "by hand", of course > (rather than with a packaging tool like apt-get). Occasionally you'll > want the newest version of something, which will in turn occasionally > get you into some grim automake issue or similar. But all of this can > be entirely avoided in an introductory course -- simply restrict > yourself to what can be installed with apt-get (if the instructor > feels they *must* make some new library available, they can always > package it themselves). > > The obstacles as presented in the OP seem pretty bogus to me. Of course, it's third hand anecdotal evidence, so there's not much of a reason to believe that the original statement really preserves the essence of the problem. I'd be pretty interested if the OP could ask his associate to chime in with some of the actual issues he encountered -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
On Nov 20, 9:36 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FWIW it's trivial to run pyflakes on your code (automatically behind > the scenes) to get syntax checking; in vim, my syntax errors get > underlined immediately for python code. Can you describe your setup a bit more precisely ? I'm interested in this kind of development help. I had a quick look at pyflakes but I haven't found any signs of vim integration. > I also get function prototypes on the status line I'm interested in that as well ! regards, Philippe -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
On Nov 20, 5:01 pm, "Patrick Mullen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (Oops, sent as private, reposting to list) > > On Nov 20, 2007 12:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > FWIW it's trivial to run pyflakes on your code (automatically behind > > the scenes) to get syntax checking; in vim, my syntax errors get > > underlined immediately for python code. It's especially nice for > > large web applications, where having to go reload a page only to > > discover you typed "if a=1:" or some silliness actually takes some > > amount of time. > > > I also get function prototypes on the status line (so, e.g., the > > elsethread example of confusing list.extend and list.append is > > mitigated to a large degree). > > > Dynamic typing loses some info, but you can get most of the big > > benefits with it. > > > -- > >http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > > That sounds really cool. What do I have to do to set up vim so it > does that for me? I'm leaving for the holidays in 5 minutes, I'll post my configs when I return (Monday-ish). Feel free to email me a reminder on Monday... The basic concept should work fine in emacs, but the glue would need someone to implement it (my grand scheme plan is to do it over with the NetBeans integration interface so that vim/xemacs/whatever would pick it up okay, but I'm not sure if that API is featureful enough). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
I think they need to change teachers in this school! On Nov 17, 2007 2:46 PM, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Had a unsettling conversation with a CS instructor that > teaches at local high schools and the community > college. This person is a long-term Linux/C/Python > programmer, but he claims that the install, config, and > library models for C# have proved to be less > problematic than Python. So both his courses (intro, > data structs, algorithms) are taught in C#. > > I am a low-end (3-year) journeyman Pythonista, and I > was attracted to the language because of its > simplicity. And I have come to enjoy the richness of > available libraries. > > Many of the good people of this NG may be 'too close' > to answer, but has Python, as a general devel platform, > lost its simplicity ? Is library install too complex > and unreliable ? Will my dog go to heaven ? > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- http://search.goldwatches.com/ http://www.jewelerslounge.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
(Oops, sent as private, reposting to list) On Nov 20, 2007 12:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FWIW it's trivial to run pyflakes on your code (automatically behind > the scenes) to get syntax checking; in vim, my syntax errors get > underlined immediately for python code. It's especially nice for > large web applications, where having to go reload a page only to > discover you typed "if a=1:" or some silliness actually takes some > amount of time. > > I also get function prototypes on the status line (so, e.g., the > elsethread example of confusing list.extend and list.append is > mitigated to a large degree). > > Dynamic typing loses some info, but you can get most of the big > benefits with it. > > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > That sounds really cool. What do I have to do to set up vim so it does that for me? Back on topic, I don't think python has lost it's simplicity. It has added many features in the last few versions, but none of them are requirements for learning. There are some things in python that I can see might be sticky points for instructors, but these things have always been an issue. The IDE is one thing. With python being agnostic about so many things, such as the IDE, an instructor has to choose which ide would be best to teach with. And none of the ides available can match Microsoft's offering (One of the best, if not THE best IDE available for any language). As someone who only uses 2% of the features of an IDE if I am ever forced to use one, I don't respect that, but many people swear by it. The interactive interpreter is great as well, but that scenario doesn't work well for everybody. If someone doesn't have much experience with command line tools, than a microsoft word-ish (like VS) interface is going to be more condusive for them. You also have to think about a classroom scenario. I think python works very well for pair programming, one-on-one tutoring, or through text correspondence. In a class, there are many situations for error. Being tab-based is a real problem in this instance, when trying to tell someone how to write something. You have to be clear about where to tab over. With blocks, it is much easier to verbalize. I have run into this when helping people to code in person, but with one-on-one and their full attention it's not so hard to disambiguate things. In a classroom where many people are having different sorts of problems, I can see where issues might crop up. Then the library situation, which is a strength and weakness of python. It is starting to be remedied with easy_install, but easy_install on windows is a joke (and there are still issues with it under linux at times). There are many libraries but on windows it can often be a chore to track down the ones that you want, and while the batteries are included with respect to strong language features and web modules; the batteries are definitely missing in some key areas: gui (tk is really quite awful, hard to learn, and ugly), web application, graphics (pygame, PIL, opengl), sound/music (uh, any standard libs for this? pygame is the only one that comes to mind for me), etc. I'd like to see a few things. Easy install being included with pygame as standard, with a gui. Ability to browse the cheesshop and look for specific things, such as image processing, graphics display, gui, etc. A list of suggested extra libraries to install when you run the python installer: (Tick off the web framework(s) you want to install). A nicer default gui (don't know what that would be, yes I am aware of the huge flame war and wound this would open up). A slightly improved interpreter - when entering a long function and getting it wrong, I want to bring back the whole function, not just line by line. A better standard IDE - too bad the best ones all seem to be commercial. So that is mostly a wish list, and some of those things will never happen, but the standard easy install with a gui would be a good thing to work towards for the windows world. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
"Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > These modules exist, but aren't that common. Certainly anything you're > likely to be using in an introductory compsci course is well packaged. > And even if it's not, it's really not that hard to create packages or > installers - a days work of course prep would take care of the > potential problem. "A day's worth of course prep" for beginners would let them debug all the crap that building MySQLdb on Windows might throw at them, for example? I think not! (MySQLdb, last time I looked, was one of the not-so-obscure modules that don't have a Windows installer available and kept up to date. Maybe it does now, but that's not really the point.) I certainly don't recognise what some people have been saying, though. It's a rare thing that I have any real pain installing a Python module on Linux. That's not to say you don't need some background knowledge about distributions and Python if doing it "by hand", of course (rather than with a packaging tool like apt-get). Occasionally you'll want the newest version of something, which will in turn occasionally get you into some grim automake issue or similar. But all of this can be entirely avoided in an introductory course -- simply restrict yourself to what can be installed with apt-get (if the instructor feels they *must* make some new library available, they can always package it themselves). John -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
On Nov 20, 10:20 am, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 19, 1:41 am, MonkeeSage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On the other hand, C# and .NET seems like a lot of baggage to bring to > > the table. First off, you have to introduce the CLR and how it relates > > to C#, then you have to deal with all the public, private, etc, > > syntaxis for constructors/destructors. I don't see how anyone could > > claim that C# is simpler to teach than python. I mean, (non-PC > > statement follows), it's easier to teach retarded, blind children to > > recite the lord's prayer backwards, in sign language, than it is to > > get a working .net environment set up for actual use w/o installing > > the latest visual studio. And not everyone had five-million dollars > > (or a corporate license) to get the latest and greatest VS. > > You've got some good points that are not > necessarily the case any more. The free > version of Visual Studio from MSFT installs > with no problems as far as I can tell, > especially on recent Windows OS's. The > extra complexity of "static public void Main()..." > &c is scary and confusing, but you can just tell > the students to "ignore that stuff for now." > You don't have to talk about the CLR at all; > the students naturally take it for granted. > In VS when you start typing something, > VS makes a pretty good guess what you are > trying to do and offers to complete it for you > -- which would be really nice to have in > Python (and unavailable afaik, at least at > that level of sophistication). When you make > a syntax or type error you get a red squiggly > underline, and so forth. > FWIW it's trivial to run pyflakes on your code (automatically behind the scenes) to get syntax checking; in vim, my syntax errors get underlined immediately for python code. It's especially nice for large web applications, where having to go reload a page only to discover you typed "if a=1:" or some silliness actually takes some amount of time. I also get function prototypes on the status line (so, e.g., the elsethread example of confusing list.extend and list.append is mitigated to a large degree). Dynamic typing loses some info, but you can get most of the big benefits with it. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
On Nov 19, 1:41 am, MonkeeSage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On the other hand, C# and .NET seems like a lot of baggage to bring to > the table. First off, you have to introduce the CLR and how it relates > to C#, then you have to deal with all the public, private, etc, > syntaxis for constructors/destructors. I don't see how anyone could > claim that C# is simpler to teach than python. I mean, (non-PC > statement follows), it's easier to teach retarded, blind children to > recite the lord's prayer backwards, in sign language, than it is to > get a working .net environment set up for actual use w/o installing > the latest visual studio. And not everyone had five-million dollars > (or a corporate license) to get the latest and greatest VS. You've got some good points that are not necessarily the case any more. The free version of Visual Studio from MSFT installs with no problems as far as I can tell, especially on recent Windows OS's. The extra complexity of "static public void Main()..." &c is scary and confusing, but you can just tell the students to "ignore that stuff for now." You don't have to talk about the CLR at all; the students naturally take it for granted. In VS when you start typing something, VS makes a pretty good guess what you are trying to do and offers to complete it for you -- which would be really nice to have in Python (and unavailable afaik, at least at that level of sophistication). When you make a syntax or type error you get a red squiggly underline, and so forth. On the other hand I still think that the Python interactive interpreter is the coolest thing about Python for beginners. It's the only language I know where you could seriously start introducing basic concepts of strings, hash tables, and arrays (lists/tuples) in the first hour or so to students below MIT level of preparation. This is primarily because the interactive interpreter and Python's nice syntax make everything so accessible. In C# you might get into arrays or strings in week 3+ and hash tables and other scary things would probably wait for the second course. IronPython anyone? (btw, what's up with IronPython?) -- Aaron Watters === http://www.xfeedme.com/nucular/pydistro.py/go?FREETEXT=crash+many+ways&FocusId=1593 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:29:06 -0800, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >declaimed the following in comp.lang.python: > >> shared hosting server and see how far you get. Or try to install >> the same set of modules on both Linux and Windows. >> > Try installing anything .NETish on Linux? Unfortunately, depending on your viewpoint, it works just fine, thanks to the hard work that has gone into the Mono project. -- Tim Roberts, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
Dennis Lee Bieber schrieb: > On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:47:37 +0100, "Diez B. Roggisch" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> declaimed the following in comp.lang.python: > >> BTW, you can download eggs and install them from files - so while >> teaching easy_install how to deal with proxies (are these still used by >> anyone - I thought that was in the 90ties... ) certainly would be good, >> it isn't necessary. >> > Company firewall blocks practically anything that doesn't come down > from a web-browser... Which is a totally different thing from a proxy. And I'd think that nowadays most proxies are transparent. > > I've never been able to figure out how to install a downloaded egg > -- the installer, even with the file in the same directory, still seems > to try to find a web copy and dies on the firewall. easy_install works for me. Of course you need to install dependencies. It might even work to do easy_install but I don't know for sure anymore. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
On Nov 19, 3:44 am, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 17 Nov., 14:46, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What have I missed? Microsoft has a free download version of Visual Studio which you can install in one go that has basically everything you might want to cover in the first 2 or 3 programming classes built in. Also, when it comes to making things easy the magic "intellisense" in VS cannot be beat, and stricter typing rules tend to keep'em out of trouble. I've seen moderately skilled programmers get confused about list.append versus list.extend -- it wouldn't happen in C#. I would suggest that Python might be better for more advanced classes like data structures because Python cuts out all those declarations that get in the way of understanding. For example you could implement a binary tree in Python in 5 minutes of typing, providing "just the facts, M'am", whereas even with intellisense help it would take 15 minutes in C# and the students would be totally lost in the details when you were done. It's also possible that once you break'em in a bit beginner students would make better progress with more advanced concepts by making use of the interactive interpreter. I've taught java and C# where the students freeze in abject fear when they confront their first array -- Python lists are much less intimidating at the interactive prompt. At the beginning, however, I would agree that C# has some serious advantages. I don't see anything wrong in teaching a bit of both, tho. Students also like to learn languages which they can find in the "help wanted" section very easily ;). -- Aaron Watters === http://www.xfeedme.com/nucular/pydistro.py/go?FREETEXT=perverse+zone -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
alain schrieb: > On Nov 19, 9:44 am, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 17 Nov., 14:46, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Had a unsettling conversation with a CS instructor that >>> teaches at local high schools and the community >>> college. This person is a long-term Linux/C/Python >>> programmer, but he claims that the install, config, and >>> library models for C# have proved to be less >>> problematic than Python. So both his courses (intro, >>> data structs, algorithms) are taught in C#. >> I don't understand this complaint. How does your instructor installs >> libraries for C#? When he uses Linux for teaching purposes I assume >> his students have little problems typing some shell commands and when >> he uses Windows his students might feel comfortable double clicking on >> a Windows installer - most likely containing prepackaged binaries. >> What have I missed? >> >> Kay > > I think i understand his complaint. > Have you ever tried to install a package making use of easy_install? > If you have, then you understand this is a real pain in the ass, > especially if your internet access requires proxy authentication. > The world was easy before easy_install ! setuptools might not be flawless, but it works for me most of the times - and always better than pure distutils. BTW, you can download eggs and install them from files - so while teaching easy_install how to deal with proxies (are these still used by anyone - I thought that was in the 90ties... ) certainly would be good, it isn't necessary. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
On Nov 19, 9:57 am, "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 19, 2007 8:52 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 17, 7:46 am, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Had a unsettling conversation with a CS instructor that > > > teaches at local high schools and the community > > > college. This person is a long-term Linux/C/Python > > > programmer, but he claims that the install, config, and > > > library models for C# have proved to be less > > > problematic than Python. So both his courses (intro, > > > data structs, algorithms) are taught in C#. > > > > I am a low-end (3-year) journeyman Pythonista, and I > > > was attracted to the language because of its > > > simplicity. And I have come to enjoy the richness of > > > available libraries. > > > > Many of the good people of this NG may be 'too close' > > > to answer, but has Python, as a general devel platform, > > > lost its simplicity ? Is library install too complex > > > and unreliable ? Will my dog go to heaven ? > > > If this professor was only using Windows for his environment, then I > > might be able to understand his argument better. There are many more > > external modules for Python that don't have Windows installers than > > there are with binaries. And I've had more than my fair share of > > broken setup.py files. > > > On the other hand, if all that is needed are the standard libraries, > > than it's a breeze to install Python since they're all included. > > > Mike > > These modules exist, but aren't that common. Certainly anything you're > likely to be using in an introductory compsci course is well packaged. > And even if it's not, it's really not that hard to create packages or > installers - a days work of course prep would take care of the > potential problem. I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification. Mike -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
On Nov 19, 2007 8:52 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 17, 7:46 am, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Had a unsettling conversation with a CS instructor that > > teaches at local high schools and the community > > college. This person is a long-term Linux/C/Python > > programmer, but he claims that the install, config, and > > library models for C# have proved to be less > > problematic than Python. So both his courses (intro, > > data structs, algorithms) are taught in C#. > > > > I am a low-end (3-year) journeyman Pythonista, and I > > was attracted to the language because of its > > simplicity. And I have come to enjoy the richness of > > available libraries. > > > > Many of the good people of this NG may be 'too close' > > to answer, but has Python, as a general devel platform, > > lost its simplicity ? Is library install too complex > > and unreliable ? Will my dog go to heaven ? > > If this professor was only using Windows for his environment, then I > might be able to understand his argument better. There are many more > external modules for Python that don't have Windows installers than > there are with binaries. And I've had more than my fair share of > broken setup.py files. > > On the other hand, if all that is needed are the standard libraries, > than it's a breeze to install Python since they're all included. > > Mike > These modules exist, but aren't that common. Certainly anything you're likely to be using in an introductory compsci course is well packaged. And even if it's not, it's really not that hard to create packages or installers - a days work of course prep would take care of the potential problem. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
On Nov 17, 7:46 am, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Had a unsettling conversation with a CS instructor that > teaches at local high schools and the community > college. This person is a long-term Linux/C/Python > programmer, but he claims that the install, config, and > library models for C# have proved to be less > problematic than Python. So both his courses (intro, > data structs, algorithms) are taught in C#. > > I am a low-end (3-year) journeyman Pythonista, and I > was attracted to the language because of its > simplicity. And I have come to enjoy the richness of > available libraries. > > Many of the good people of this NG may be 'too close' > to answer, but has Python, as a general devel platform, > lost its simplicity ? Is library install too complex > and unreliable ? Will my dog go to heaven ? If this professor was only using Windows for his environment, then I might be able to understand his argument better. There are many more external modules for Python that don't have Windows installers than there are with binaries. And I've had more than my fair share of broken setup.py files. On the other hand, if all that is needed are the standard libraries, than it's a breeze to install Python since they're all included. Mike -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
On Nov 19, 9:44 am, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 17 Nov., 14:46, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Had a unsettling conversation with a CS instructor that > > teaches at local high schools and the community > > college. This person is a long-term Linux/C/Python > > programmer, but he claims that the install, config, and > > library models for C# have proved to be less > > problematic than Python. So both his courses (intro, > > data structs, algorithms) are taught in C#. > > I don't understand this complaint. How does your instructor installs > libraries for C#? When he uses Linux for teaching purposes I assume > his students have little problems typing some shell commands and when > he uses Windows his students might feel comfortable double clicking on > a Windows installer - most likely containing prepackaged binaries. > What have I missed? > > Kay I think i understand his complaint. Have you ever tried to install a package making use of easy_install? If you have, then you understand this is a real pain in the ass, especially if your internet access requires proxy authentication. The world was easy before easy_install ! Alain -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
On 17 Nov., 14:46, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Had a unsettling conversation with a CS instructor that > teaches at local high schools and the community > college. This person is a long-term Linux/C/Python > programmer, but he claims that the install, config, and > library models for C# have proved to be less > problematic than Python. So both his courses (intro, > data structs, algorithms) are taught in C#. I don't understand this complaint. How does your instructor installs libraries for C#? When he uses Linux for teaching purposes I assume his students have little problems typing some shell commands and when he uses Windows his students might feel comfortable double clicking on a Windows installer - most likely containing prepackaged binaries. What have I missed? Kay -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
On Nov 17, 7:46 am, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Had a unsettling conversation with a CS instructor that > teaches at local high schools and the community > college. This person is a long-term Linux/C/Python > programmer, but he claims that the install, config, and > library models for C# have proved to be less > problematic than Python. So both his courses (intro, > data structs, algorithms) are taught in C#. > > I am a low-end (3-year) journeyman Pythonista, and I > was attracted to the language because of its > simplicity. And I have come to enjoy the richness of > available libraries. > > Many of the good people of this NG may be 'too close' > to answer, but has Python, as a general devel platform, > lost its simplicity ? Is library install too complex > and unreliable ? Will my dog go to heaven ? I started out with some javascript and ruby background, and I "mastered" (i.e., could do everything I wanted to do in) python in a few months (including playing with the GTK bindings). I only have a GED, so I'm not the smartest programmer in the world or anything. But even so, the learning curve for python, for me, was very gradual. Nothing to too complex to swallow a spoonful at a time. After several years of using python (a very short time in the long-run, mind you), I think that the basic concepts are as simple as ever, and it remains a prime candidate for a CS 101 course. On the other hand, C# and .NET seems like a lot of baggage to bring to the table. First off, you have to introduce the CLR and how it relates to C#, then you have to deal with all the public, private, etc, syntaxis for constructors/destructors. I don't see how anyone could claim that C# is simpler to teach than python. I mean, (non-PC statement follows), it's easier to teach retarded, blind children to recite the lord's prayer backwards, in sign language, than it is to get a working .net environment set up for actual use w/o installing the latest visual studio. And not everyone had five-million dollars (or a corporate license) to get the latest and greatest VS. Regards, Jordan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
Brian wrote: > Had a unsettling conversation with a CS instructor that > teaches at local high schools and the community > college. This person is a long-term Linux/C/Python > programmer, but he claims that the install, config, and > library models for C# have proved to be less > problematic than Python. So both his courses (intro, > data structs, algorithms) are taught in C#. > > I am a low-end (3-year) journeyman Pythonista, and I > was attracted to the language because of its > simplicity. And I have come to enjoy the richness of > available libraries. > > Many of the good people of this NG may be 'too close' > to answer, but has Python, as a general devel platform, > lost its simplicity ? Is library install too complex > and unreliable ? Will my dog go to heaven ? I'm a complete noob about most of this, but it sounds like his problem may have more to do with what needs to be done on a Linux machine, than anything specifically pertaining to Python. How can you call installing Python (or any third-party modules) on Windows 'hard'? Maybe his students just have a harder type figuring out how to install things in Linux? I don't know... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
Paddy wrote: > On Nov 17, 1:46 pm, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Had a unsettling conversation with a CS instructor that >> teaches at local high schools and the community >> college. This person is a long-term Linux/C/Python >> programmer, but he claims that the install, config, and >> library models for C# have proved to be less >> problematic than Python. He has a point. Many Python enthusiasts are in denial about this, but, face it, the binary library situation isn't in good shape. Try running something that needs, say, MySQL and OpenSSL on a shared hosting server and see how far you get. Or try to install the same set of modules on both Linux and Windows. John Nagle -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
On Nov 17, 3:21 pm, Tim Chase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > programmer, but he claims that the install, config, and > > library models for C# have proved to be less > > problematic than Python. So both his courses (intro, > > data structs, algorithms) are taught in C#. > > A little anecdotal comparison from some of my experience with two > web apps deployed at my current company: > > One web app, written in C#/ASP.net one written in Python. > > Moved each app to new servers (C#/ASP.net on a new Windows box, > Python app on a shiny new Debian box). > > C#/ASP.net app: had to find and install the right version of the > .net libraries. That's an afternoon of my life I won't get back. > > Python app: copied my app > > C#/ASP.net app: couldn't find VS2003 (in which the app had been > written) any more so had to upgrade to VS2005. > > Python app: Continued to use the same development environment. > > C#/ASP.net app: (ASP specific) generally requires following a > particular convention. Writing a RESTful web app is next to > impossible given the reliance on the postbacks; and the server > environment doesn't make it easy to make clean URLs > > Python app: Django makes web-app development easy and > clean/RESTful (other frameworks may as well...I speak from Django > experience) and push you to Do The Right Thing (tm) > > C#/ASP.net app: had to re-partition my server containers so that > it could deploy .Net 2.0 and .Net 3.0 apps side-by-side > > Python app: I've had Python 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 running on the same > machine without a thought > > C#/ASP.net app: libraries are often written to a particular > framework version, so if any new functionality requires the new > version the whole app needs to be migrated. > > Python app: most of the libraries I use come built in, or they > work with 2.3 or later. > > C#/ASP.net app: Installing new libraries, same as upgrading > currently-used libraries. Usually requires paying for, then > manually installing various libraries, clearing distribution > rights, etc. > > Python app: There are an abundance libraries that are just an > apt-get away in terms of difficulty, and they are Free Software > so I can install them and deploy them without additional costs. > > C#/ASP.net app: 3rd party libraries usually come as source-less > DLLs that you can't peer into > > Python app: 3rd party libraries are usually pure python which > you can modify or step into as needed > > C#/ASP.net app: really only works well on Windows > > Python app: works well on Windows, Linux, BSD, Mac OS X... > > C#/ASP.net app: really requires Visual Studio > > Python app: works well with Eclipse, Vim, Emacs, Wing IDE, > Komodo, Idle, and piles of other development environments. Heck, > I've written the occasional python program using "ed" or "cat > > x.py". > > C#/ASP.net app: files are scattered all over. You've got source > apps, you've got templates, you've got resource files, you've got > GUID files. And VS hides the complexity so when (not "if") > something breaks you get a crash course in what goes on under the > covers. > > Python app: I've got .py files (and sometimes templates for my > Django code, and could have I18N files for translations). Very > easy to track down where everything is. > > C#/ASP.net app: Code/syntax is horridly opaque, requires braces > and lots of additional overhead code to get things done. Compare > the clutter of a basic C# script with a similarly function Python > script. How much is pure syntactic overhead? > > Python app: Code/syntax is rather easy to read (once you > understand list comprehensions and the __foo__ methods) > > Yeah, I'd take Python any day...for implementation *OR* for > teaching someone how to program. > > -tkc Thank you very much for this VERY useful summary. It gives me tons of ammunition in case the latest .Net zealot walks into my office :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
> > > The gui is an issue. Does one TK or rely on some fall-back system of > > gnome/kde/x11/windows dialogue boxes (ending in abject failure by way of > > raw_input on the command line)? Or (perhaps) have it fetch a standard > > dialogue library which would fetch and install what is needed for future > > occasions. > > > > You wouldn't really *need* a GUI, although it probably should be a > configurable option ... so the user can keep tabs on, and more control > over, what's going on. No reason why it couldn't be totally > automated. easy_install already provides for automated installation > of python apps/libraries, so you could build off that. > This is what Enthought proposes with the Enstaller application. Works really well. Matthieu -- French PhD student Website : http://miles.developpez.com/ Blogs : http://matt.eifelle.com and http://blog.developpez.com/?blog=92 LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthieubrucher -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
> Interesting idea, although it's not something I'd want included and > turned on by default. Should certainly be possible, though, with a > little __import__ magic. Well, since we're shooting the sh*t :), I tried in my one and only released app (Fonty Python) to wrap the imports in try clauses and then print helpful strings to the console to guide the user. I'm really not too clued-up on the __deep__ magic of Python, so I can't say what tricks there are, but a simple "catch a fail and then start a solution" process is a general approach. >> If you are online and the app runs, it can check the "freshness" of your >> modules (those called from the app and recursively) and offer to fetch >> the latest stable versions. > Something similar to Java's webstart? Implement an __import__ hook > that downloads and caches the latest (stable) versions of libraries as > needed. I have also never touched Java, so I can't say, but something like that. The main problem with having modules coming from the web is time. How long is the life of a URL? The Cheese Shop seems pretty well established and could serve the role. Perhaps there are already ways of making sure that a hard-coded link in an app can reach a variable URL online. > You wouldn't really *need* a GUI, although it probably should be a > configurable option ... I'd agree, but then I grew up with commands lines. I can say with total confidence that the command-line scares a lot of people and if there are any questions that need answering during the automated process (and there's always *something* that crops up ) then a gui is the natural way to reach the user. > No reason why it couldn't be totally > automated. easy_install already provides for automated installation > of python apps/libraries, so you could build off that. Totally automated would be the goal. I'd say a throbber or progress animation of some kind would be needed. Just thought of a wrinkle - say a new module is available and is installed and then proves to be broken. How can the app recover? There'd have to be a system of flags in a db that mark the situation and on re-run can roll back to the last working module. Then we get feedback to the author of the module And let's not forget all the joy that can be spread by having to compile modules (on various platforms) from C/C++ and then worry about *their* dependant libraries! Oh fun times :p (I think I can see why this has never been approached.) > Merely using decorators is, IMHO, much easier > to understand (but still requires a slight brain-warp). I'm still stuck with those things. I can't really find an example that I want to use. My brain keeps saying "yeah, but that's so smoke and mirrors and I could do it this way ... which seems much plainer." > I think some > people try to understand decorators too completely too quickly, and > end up labeling them one of those complex/unintuitive/"way out" > things. I have put them in the bag along with Design Patterns and Threads as "things that I don't have to worry about because liff is too short. And like the Spanish Inquisition, they're welcome to surprise me when I least expect it, but I'm not going to lose my mind waiting :D /d -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
On Nov 17, 8:25 am, Donn Ingle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I dunno about your dog :) but Python libs are not too demanding. From a > Gnu/Linux pov with package managers things are quite simple. > > My wish is to find a way to make that even easier because the packaged > modules are not always up to date. > > If the Cheese Shop could supply downloads of modules and we could stick on a > gui interface that wraps around import statements to guide the installation > of any missing packages -- that would be progress. > Interesting idea, although it's not something I'd want included and turned on by default. Should certainly be possible, though, with a little __import__ magic. > If you are online and the app runs, it can check the "freshness" of your > modules (those called from the app and recursively) and offer to fetch the > latest stable versions. > Something similar to Java's webstart? Implement an __import__ hook that downloads and caches the latest (stable) versions of libraries as needed. > The gui is an issue. Does one TK or rely on some fall-back system of > gnome/kde/x11/windows dialogue boxes (ending in abject failure by way of > raw_input on the command line)? Or (perhaps) have it fetch a standard > dialogue library which would fetch and install what is needed for future > occasions. > You wouldn't really *need* a GUI, although it probably should be a configurable option ... so the user can keep tabs on, and more control over, what's going on. No reason why it couldn't be totally automated. easy_install already provides for automated installation of python apps/libraries, so you could build off that. > Anyway, this is a bit of a hijack and I have not touched C# in any way, but > I don't think Python has anything to be ashamed of.* > > /d > > * Okay, maybe decorators but that's just because I am far too thick to grok > them :D It seems there are a number of people who don't grok decorators. While getting to know how they work underneath does require some careful reading and out-of-the-box thinking, it's only really necessary to understand them at this level if you want to actually implement a decorator. Merely using decorators is, IMHO, much easier to understand (but still requires a slight brain-warp). I think some people try to understand decorators too completely too quickly, and end up labeling them one of those complex/unintuitive/"way out" things. --Nathan Davis -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
I dunno about your dog :) but Python libs are not too demanding. From a Gnu/Linux pov with package managers things are quite simple. My wish is to find a way to make that even easier because the packaged modules are not always up to date. If the Cheese Shop could supply downloads of modules and we could stick on a gui interface that wraps around import statements to guide the installation of any missing packages -- that would be progress. If you are online and the app runs, it can check the "freshness" of your modules (those called from the app and recursively) and offer to fetch the latest stable versions. The gui is an issue. Does one TK or rely on some fall-back system of gnome/kde/x11/windows dialogue boxes (ending in abject failure by way of raw_input on the command line)? Or (perhaps) have it fetch a standard dialogue library which would fetch and install what is needed for future occasions. Anyway, this is a bit of a hijack and I have not touched C# in any way, but I don't think Python has anything to be ashamed of.* /d * Okay, maybe decorators but that's just because I am far too thick to grok them :D -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
On Nov 17, 7:46 am, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This person is a long-term Linux/C/Python > programmer, but he claims that the install, config, and > library models for C# have proved to be less > problematic than Python. If his students have problems installing Python on Windows, show him this. http://tinyurl.com/w7wgp It can't get any easier. rd -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
> programmer, but he claims that the install, config, and > library models for C# have proved to be less > problematic than Python. So both his courses (intro, > data structs, algorithms) are taught in C#. A little anecdotal comparison from some of my experience with two web apps deployed at my current company: One web app, written in C#/ASP.net one written in Python. Moved each app to new servers (C#/ASP.net on a new Windows box, Python app on a shiny new Debian box). C#/ASP.net app: had to find and install the right version of the .net libraries. That's an afternoon of my life I won't get back. Python app: copied my app C#/ASP.net app: couldn't find VS2003 (in which the app had been written) any more so had to upgrade to VS2005. Python app: Continued to use the same development environment. C#/ASP.net app: (ASP specific) generally requires following a particular convention. Writing a RESTful web app is next to impossible given the reliance on the postbacks; and the server environment doesn't make it easy to make clean URLs Python app: Django makes web-app development easy and clean/RESTful (other frameworks may as well...I speak from Django experience) and push you to Do The Right Thing (tm) C#/ASP.net app: had to re-partition my server containers so that it could deploy .Net 2.0 and .Net 3.0 apps side-by-side Python app: I've had Python 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 running on the same machine without a thought C#/ASP.net app: libraries are often written to a particular framework version, so if any new functionality requires the new version the whole app needs to be migrated. Python app: most of the libraries I use come built in, or they work with 2.3 or later. C#/ASP.net app: Installing new libraries, same as upgrading currently-used libraries. Usually requires paying for, then manually installing various libraries, clearing distribution rights, etc. Python app: There are an abundance libraries that are just an apt-get away in terms of difficulty, and they are Free Software so I can install them and deploy them without additional costs. C#/ASP.net app: 3rd party libraries usually come as source-less DLLs that you can't peer into Python app: 3rd party libraries are usually pure python which you can modify or step into as needed C#/ASP.net app: really only works well on Windows Python app: works well on Windows, Linux, BSD, Mac OS X... C#/ASP.net app: really requires Visual Studio Python app: works well with Eclipse, Vim, Emacs, Wing IDE, Komodo, Idle, and piles of other development environments. Heck, I've written the occasional python program using "ed" or "cat > x.py". C#/ASP.net app: files are scattered all over. You've got source apps, you've got templates, you've got resource files, you've got GUID files. And VS hides the complexity so when (not "if") something breaks you get a crash course in what goes on under the covers. Python app: I've got .py files (and sometimes templates for my Django code, and could have I18N files for translations). Very easy to track down where everything is. C#/ASP.net app: Code/syntax is horridly opaque, requires braces and lots of additional overhead code to get things done. Compare the clutter of a basic C# script with a similarly function Python script. How much is pure syntactic overhead? Python app: Code/syntax is rather easy to read (once you understand list comprehensions and the __foo__ methods) Yeah, I'd take Python any day...for implementation *OR* for teaching someone how to program. -tkc -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python too complex ?!?!?!
On Nov 17, 1:46 pm, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Had a unsettling conversation with a CS instructor that > teaches at local high schools and the community > college. This person is a long-term Linux/C/Python > programmer, but he claims that the install, config, and > library models for C# have proved to be less > problematic than Python. So both his courses (intro, > data structs, algorithms) are taught in C#. > > I am a low-end (3-year) journeyman Pythonista, and I > was attracted to the language because of its > simplicity. And I have come to enjoy the richness of > available libraries. > > Many of the good people of this NG may be 'too close' > to answer, but has Python, as a general devel platform, > lost its simplicity ? Is library install too complex > and unreliable ? Will my dog go to heaven ? It would be nice to have more info on his specific problems. Me, I find both Activestates and the official Python wiundows installers just work. - Paddy. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
