On May 5, 5:56 pm, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <ja...@jacobian.org> wrote: > Then next time leave out the rambling, ad hominems, and sweeping > generalizations. Focus on technical suggestions -- working code is > even better. If you have problems, suggest fixes concretely.
To be fair, I'm not sure I saw any ad hominem attacks in Kevin's post (do correct me if you think I'm wrong). He did disparage a point of view which says that something must be suspect because of "perceived" Java (or Ruby, or whatever...) heritage, without ascribing it to any specific person or group. Perhaps his comment was in response to some content in the original thread which I referred to, which mentioned the "Java heritage" FUD. This stems, it seems, from my acknowledging a debt to some good ideas (not code) from log4j. I make no apologies for this; good ideas can come from anywhere, not just Python or Django people. The logging PEP and package were reviewed by numerous committers on Python-dev when first proposed, and given the nod - so I don't understand how people can still have doubts about it's "Pythonicity". As for performance, there's a page on the Python Wiki (http:// wiki.python.org/moin/LoggingPackage) which provides some rough performance metrics. I have yet to see any substantive criticisms based on actual measurements. Just sayin', Vinay Sajip -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
