On Apr 4, 2005, at 9:38 PM, Lee Cullens wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, at 6:16 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, at 16:13, Lee Cullens wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
Personally I think these little package idiosyncrasies are what discourage non-hacker users and businesses that might otherwise advance the use of Python, to the benefit of those that have enough experience and skills to prepare and maintain a presentable tool - but we all have a perfect right to our own priorities and outlook.
On Apr 4, 2005, at 10:17, Lee Cullens wrote:
One thing I noticed with your 2.4.1 build is that in the PythonIDE Help menu "Python Documentation" and "Lookup in Python Documentation" are dimmed out (not available). Such in the 2.3 PythonIDE is still available though.
This time I did look in the Mac Python FAQ first, but the suggestion there did not remedy the problem.
I have no idea. If it's broken, it's broken in the source -- I didn't do it. I don't use PythonIDE, so I'm not really interested in tracking it down myself.
I'm not sure I agree with "advance the use of Python". These sorts of people don't generally contribute much back in my experience. They might have "advanced uses for Python", but probably aren't doing anyone else favors. Nobody is paid to make Python on Mac OS X suitable for new users. Those who are (teachers, etc.) haven't bothered to contribute any patches (recently, anyway) as far as I can tell.
I'm talking about a little bit wider perspective Bob. It is one thing in the world of the accomplished hacker/artist to be able to use Python to be more productive, where little idiosyncrasies/bugs are easily worked out when needed because one has the skills. It is also understandable in the culture where one is contributing their time and effort mostly freely, to not quite reach a "polished" package because there is just so much one can get done and there is an over abundance of both necessary and interesting issues to deal with (not to mention too few to deal with them). I've been there in a different "neighborhood," but I also took a little bit wider perspective so I could afford to retire and play in a new "neighborhood."
Unfortunately there are quite a few hard problems to solve "under the iceberg" before I think it's worth polishing it on Mac OS X for new users. Most importantly, building standalone applications has to work correctly (py2app), there has to be an easy way to find and use third party stuff (PyPI, PythonEggs, bdist_mpkg, MacEnthon, ...), good frameworks for various application domains need to exist (PyObjC, wxPython, Twisted, SciPy, PEAK, ...), and there needs to be an IDE that has the right design. It's definitely well on its way there, and there has been a lot of activity in these areas recently (except the IDE front, on OS X anyway).
All of the IDEs I've played with have real architectural issues, except for IDLE and Wing. IDLE at least can run and debug external processes, which is absolutely necessary in order to have an IDE that works right, but it suffers from Tkinter heritage and other cruft. Wing is commercial, but as far as I can tell, they have solved the hard problems (except making it nice on OS X, of course). I haven't tried SPE.
PythonIDE is basically unstable buggy crufty ancient code that I wouldn't personally touch with a 10 foot pole. It has no syntax highlighting, all of the debugging/interpreters are run in-process, etc.
I'm talking about the idea that if a software environment never progresses substantially beyond hackerdom (i.e. never gains wide acceptance in the professional and business communities) then few of those that contributed so much to the base will benefit materialistically. That's ok if one is retired like myself or has sufficient other earnings, but the world can be a cruel place for those that end up without much. If a software environment like Python were to gain wide acceptance in the professional and business communities there would be even more opportunities for those with the greatest skills because there will always be new issues like evolving protocals, formats and so on, not to mention the language itself.
Just the perspective of a retired software engineer. I can respect your opinion without having to wholeheartedly agree.
Well, Python as a language is already widely accepted enough that it can be used in many professional environments (i.e. Google). Personally I'm not convinced that popularizing the language is going to make anyone rich. Consumers buy the stuff you write in Python, and use the services that are powered by Python. The only people that should care about Python are the people making the stuff, and only because it was the best tool for the job.
Of course, you could make money if your consumers are developers, and you're writing commercial developer tools for Python, but developers have never really been a huge market and there's a lot to compete with (Wing, Eclipse, Emacs, Vim, ... and I expect that Visual Studio.NET and Xcode will grow Python support in the next two or three years). Not even mentioning the other programming languages.
-bob
_______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
