On Jul 19, 2011, at 09:38 , Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote: > I have a big lack of faith for interpreted languages with modules like python. > First, they run unnecessarily slow (some say, that they allow developing > faster, > but I don't agree) and take unnecessarily big amounts of memory. > Second, they usually postpone to the 'run time' many system administration > issues, with far more complexity than shared objects and dynamic linking. You > need matching interpreter versions, modules for those versions, spread at > proper > positions of the hard disk, and even then, your particular settings > (PYTHONPATH,...) can disturb all that too much. You may have other software > that > requires another python version and the same modules spread for that version.
Actually for Python this problem is mostly solved by automated tools, you can google it by "virtualenv". Apart from performance, none of this is essentially different than with non-interpreted languages. > I think the interpreted languages have quite an uncomfortable deployment. Then > you go to cross-building, and cross-deployment, and to me it looks like the > time > to cut yoru veins. :) Actually I have pretty much opposite feelings. Proper installation of Perl or Python provides a more uniform base for my applications. Then, Mac OS X and vast majority of Linux distributions come with proper installations. So I'm actually developing on a Mac laptop, and then deploying it to Linux boxes for crunching numbers is just a matter of scp-ing the whole thing. For the small utils I sometimes write, they also always work OOTB. However, I'm not working on complex packaged software. Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
