Re: [RT] Was python a good idea?

Stefan wrote: > The reasons the Python rewrite started AFAIR: > > * get more people involved: > > didn't work, there are even less people working on Gump's code base > than before. But we have a lot more people 'sniffing around'. ;-) That said, likely this is 'cos the daily/nightly Gump coverage

MagicBuilder (was: Re: [RT] Was python a good idea?)

Stephen McConnell wrote: Leo Simons wrote: Stefan Bodewig wrote: I tend to agree with most of what has been said in this thread so far. thought I'd chime in: "what he said". I really want to learn python well enough to write more than simple shell scripts using it. Isaid that over a year ago. Here

Re: [RT] Was python a good idea?

Leo Simons wrote: Stefan Bodewig wrote: I tend to agree with most of what has been said in this thread so far. thought I'd chime in: "what he said". I really want to learn python well enough to write more than simple shell scripts using it. I said that over a year ago. Here I am, still saying it

Re: [RT] Was python a good idea?

Stefan Bodewig wrote: I tend to agree with most of what has been said in this thread so far. thought I'd chime in: "what he said". I really want to learn python well enough to write more than simple shell scripts using it. I said that over a year ago. Here I am, still saying it. One has to wonder

Re: [RT] Was python a good idea?

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Java: it's truly cross-platform and the Gump PMC members all know it quite well; easy to install * cons: dunno I've had a fetish for both complete reproducibility and for the overall build environment to be provably unable to effect the build environment. Ther

Re: [RT] Was python a good idea?

Stefan Bodewig wrote: But before we try to start all over again. Who is actually willing to write code for Gump as opposed to just toss around ideas - and who really has the time to do so and isn't already overcomitted to too many things? If it turns out to be just Adam anyway, there is little to

Re: [RT] Was python a good idea?

Although I'm not an active part of this list, the only reason I subscribed was because Gump was being rewritten in Python. I'm a Java programmer who is learning Python and I thought that Gump may teach me a few things. Unfortunately, I haven't really had the time to look over the code -- but I'

Re: [RT] Was python a good idea?

I tend to agree with most of what has been said in this thread so far. The reasons the Python rewrite started AFAIR: * get more people involved: didn't work, there are even less people working on Gump's code base than before. * get people involved from outside the Java community didn't work ei

Re: [RT] Was python a good idea?

Adam R. B. Jack wrote: Basically, I think Python Gump was the right thing to do 'cos it breathed life into a somewhat mundane/infrastructural task. I do think it has become a barrier to entry for many, which I find disturbing. As such, I'd not fight against folks wanting to re-write in Java ('cos t

Re: [RT] Was python a good idea?

Adam R. B. Jack wrote: I think we need to enable plug-ins (the easiest way for communities to open up to new developers) +1 -- |---| | Magic by Merlin | | Production by Avalon | | | | ht

Re: [RT] Was python a good idea?

> Adam, please, let me start saying this is (as indicated) a random > though, not a proposal, nor a criticism. Thanks, but not neccessary, I've had the [RT] myself many times. In the early days of this (as one gent on IM can attest) there were an uncountable number of times I bitched "I could re-

Re: [RT] Was python a good idea?

Adam, please, let me start saying this is (as indicated) a random though, not a proposal, nor a criticism. As Nicola said, moving from ant+xslt+bash to python was a tremendous improvement. I just wonder if we should stop there, especially given that this community is basically java gurus with a

Re: [RT] Was python a good idea?

Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: I think the main problem we will face in a Java Gump is dependencies. We will have to COMPLETELY resit depending on anything except JDK 1.4 Very true, but doable, IMO since we get XML/XSLT/DOM support in there. I might help more if it was in Java, but I don't see the ne

Re: [RT] Was python a good idea?

Nick Chalko wrote: Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: I have started to use python myself because I loved the much faster try/fail cycle of a scripting language and python looked a lot friendlier than other scripting languages. But in my experience, it doesn't scale in terms of c

Re: [RT] Was python a good idea?

> I have started to use python myself because I loved the much faster > try/fail cycle of a scripting language and python looked a lot > friendlier than other scripting languages. Python is fun to get started with & has some really nice features. My guess is I've not even come close to touching t

Re: [RT] Was python a good idea?

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: I have started to use python myself because I loved the much faster try/fail cycle of a scripting language and python looked a lot friendlier than other scripting languages. But in my experience, it doesn't scale in terms of complexity as much

Re: [RT] Was python a good idea?

Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: I have started to use python myself because I loved the much faster try/fail cycle of a scripting language and python looked a lot friendlier than other scripting languages. But in my experience, it doesn't scale in terms of complexity as much as java does. This is my i

[RT] Was python a good idea?

I have started to use python myself because I loved the much faster try/fail cycle of a scripting language and python looked a lot friendlier than other scripting languages. But in my experience, it doesn't scale in terms of complexity as much as java does. Also, it seems that there is a lot o