On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Cliff Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>  On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 12:25 -0700, Mike Orr wrote:
>  > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Cliff Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >  On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 08:50 -0700, Mike Orr wrote:
>  > >
>  > >  > The problem with C libraries is a lot bigger than just Google.  It
>  > >  > frustrates users on Windows and Macintosh to no end, and many of them
>  > >  > give up trying to install Pylons/lxml/ToscaWidgets/wxPython and go on
>  > >  > to something else.  Precompiled binaries don't always exist, are too
>  > >  > old, hard to find, or built with the wrong C compiler or Unicode
>  > >  > width.
>  > >  >
>  > >
>  > >  I think this is less true that it used to be.  Microsoft now makes a
>  > >  free version of Visual Studio available which is sufficient to compile
>  > >  Python extensions on Windows:
>  > >
>  > >  http://www.microsoft.com/express/download/
>  >
>  > But is every Pylons user willing to/smart enough to/allowed to install
>  > and run the compiler?
>
>  I'd think that if they were allowed to install Python (which also
>  doesn't ship with Windows), they'd be allowed to install some Microsoft
>  tools.  Granted, some places might have policy issues with this, but I'm
>  unconvinced that it's Pylons' place to work around specific policy
>  issues (especially ones that we can only speculate about).
>
>  As far as "smart enough", well... don't get me started.  Anything that
>  raises the bar enough to slow the expansion of crappy, insecure
>  applications on the web is a +1 from me ;-)
>
>
>  > More to the point, it's pretty far from what
>  > they wanted to do in the first place, which is to write a web
>  > application. If Pylons doesn't do it conveniently, they'll go to
>  > something else.  Arguing whether it's Microsoft's fault or not doesn't
>  > change the situation.  One can say we don't care about those users,
>  > but I don't think Pylons wants to do that.
>
>  Pylons is not TurboGears.  It's clearly geared toward the DYI type.
>  I can think of several things that are far more basic to web development
>  and far more difficult in Pylons than compiling a C extension:
>  authentication and authorization, managing your database connection,
>  etc.  0.9.7 will even make using a template engine a bit less
>  "automatic".

Troubleshooting 'make' errors and installing C libraries that depend
on other C libraries that have inadequate or nonexistent install
instructions [1] is a far different skill set from designing a web
app, understanding Python code and HTTP, and performing a security
audit.  The user wants to do the latter, has the skills for the
latter, but may not be a sysadmin or C programmer.  We have never
targeted Pylons only to C gurus, but to people who know Python or are
willing to learn it.

Also, now that TurboGears is built on top of Pylons, any Pylons
problem is a TurboGears problem.

[1] This happened to me a while ago with several Python chart-drawing
libraries.  Out of four I tried, I could only get one working.  One
depended on a C library that depended on another C library, and their
build instructions were laughable.

-- 
Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"pylons-discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to