Re: jython's future

Ed Jensen: > Łukasz Langa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Java was at 1.2 (and compiling Hello World took over 5 minutes) >> > > Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. > Someone else already gave you the hints on the actual relevance of my post but let me show you one more thing: htt

Re: jython's future

At Tuesday 14/11/2006 21:56, Ed Jensen wrote: ??ukasz Langa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Java was at 1.2 (and compiling Hello World took over 5 minutes) Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. That's the plain truth. Python 1.5.2 final release is of 13 April 1999

Re: jython's future

??ukasz Langa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Java was at 1.2 (and compiling Hello World took over 5 minutes) Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: jython's future

Łukasz Langa wrote: > Steve Holden: >> I think you will find that most of Fredrik Lundh's stuff will work on >> 1.5.2. He sets a fine example to us all. >> > > 1.5.2? Come on, it's 7 years old. Back then PHP was still at 3.0, Java > was at 1.2 (and compiling Hello World took over 5 minutes),

Re: jython's future

Steve Holden: > I think you will find that most of Fredrik Lundh's stuff will work on > 1.5.2. He sets a fine example to us all. > 1.5.2? Come on, it's 7 years old. Back then PHP was still at 3.0, Java was at 1.2 (and compiling Hello World took over 5 minutes), Google was nothing more than a

Re: jython's future

Carsten Haese wrote: > On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 18:34 +0100, Stefan Behnel wrote: >> Honestly, how many important Python modules do still run on 2.2? > > InformixDB still compiles on 2.2 except when I accidentally temporarily > break backwards compatibility. > > Of course it's a matter of opinion wh

Re: jython's future (was: Python development time is faster.)

On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 18:34 +0100, Stefan Behnel wrote: > Honestly, how many important Python modules do still run on 2.2? InformixDB still compiles on 2.2 except when I accidentally temporarily break backwards compatibility. Of course it's a matter of opinion whether it qualifies as an important

jython's future (was: Python development time is faster.)

Diez B. Roggisch wrote > I wouldn't consider jython abandonware. It is under active development, and > I'm using a 2.2 alpha successful for quite a while now - which usually > serves my needs. > > The problem is/was that new-style classes were a major hurdle to take, and > this now seems to be con