Hey, Alexander Kellett wrote: [snip]
> what I > really wanted to get across was that putting *primary* emphasis on > "production quality" would be terrible for the project in my opinion. Why do you think that? Don't you think it's getting time after 4 years of work? What exactly would be "terrible for the project"? I've been trying to point out that if the project doesn't put some emphasis on getting *anything* (interpreter, extension language compiler or space chickens) in production, the project is not going to attract more volunteers and it's losing credibility on getting anything in production use at all. The web page says that the project aims to provide two things: a translation and support framework for dynamic languages, and "a compliant, flexible and fast implementation of the Python Language using the above framework to enable new advanced features without having to encode low level details into it." I sort of thought this implied the goal of having people actually use it. (Perhaps it's not. In that case, I'll stop paying so much attention. Tell me!) When I ask questions about the plan to get there, I don't get answers. I don't get answers when they're not sprinting, because they need to talk at the sprint first (EuroPython). I don't get answers when they *are* sprinting as they're too busy sprinting to talk about this stuff. Forgive me for getting frustrated. Regards, Martijn _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
