Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: > "Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nick Vatamaniuc wrote: > > > > > At the same time one could claim that Python already has certain > > > policies that makes it seem as if it has a component model. > 8<---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > implementing this using existing mechanisms is trivial (as the endless > > stream of interface/component/adapter/trait implementations have shown > > us); coming up with a good-enough-to-be-useful-for-enough-people > > vocabulary is a lot harder. > > not sure if its trivial - but agree about the generality - my meat is your > poison effect operating here - > and also - standards are not per se a *Good Thing* - they stifle both > inventiveness and diversity... > > - Hendrik
Culture matters. Some things exist below a certain level of visibility and are quite evident for their practitioners but hardly recognized by anyone else. http://bitworking.org/news/Why_so_many_Python_web_frameworks There is not even a name for this kind of "coherent diversity" and at least Python doesn't brand it in any way. Maybe Pythons "obvious one way to do it" credo is more harmfull to the community as a whole than not having invented RoR. Python is ironically not proofed by hype which always favours a cyclopic universe of a single true solution. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
