Chas Emerick wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Ben Sizer wrote:
[...]
>
> I was having a discussion with a friend of mine recently, where I told
> him how depressed I became for a period after I realized that sales,
> marketing, and perception are all that really matter in this kooky
> tec
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Ben Sizer wrote:
>
>
>>Java itself never deserved to be the 'next' anything anyway.
>
>
> I've had a lot of developers come up to me and
> say, "I haven't had this much fun in a long time.
> It sure beats writing Cobol" -- James Gosling
>
>
>
"Java is Objec
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Ben Sizer wrote:
>
> > Java itself never deserved to be the 'next' anything anyway.
>
> I've had a lot of developers come up to me and
> say, "I haven't had this much fun in a long time.
> It sure beats writing Cobol" -- James Gosling
Nice quote! It also reinforc
Ben Sizer wrote:
> Java itself never deserved to be the 'next' anything anyway.
I've had a lot of developers come up to me and
say, "I haven't had this much fun in a long time.
It sure beats writing Cobol" -- James Gosling
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:30 PM, Diez wrote: - ruby has no notion of java-library support. So if anything lures java developers from J2EE-land to rails, its the framework itself. Which, by my standards, is at least met if not excelled by TurboGears and Django. So it's marketing, but of a different kin
On Aug 23, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Ben Sizer wrote:Chas Emerick wrote: There is no doubt that Ruby's success is a concern for anyone who sees it as diminishing Python's status. One of the reasons for Ruby's success is certainly the notion (originally advocated by Bruce Tate, if I'm not mistaken) that i
> Java itself never deserved to be the 'next' anything anyway. It was
> sold on hype and has never lived up to it. I can see your point from a
> business perspective but I like to think Python is sold on its merits
> and not on being the new panacea for middle managers to deploy.
Bravo. I could
Chas Emerick wrote:
> This may seem like it's coming out of left field for a minute, but
> bear with me.
>
> There is no doubt that Ruby's success is a concern for anyone who
> sees it as diminishing Python's status. One of the reasons for
> Ruby's success is certainly the notion (originally adv
Chas Emerick wrote:
> There is no doubt that Ruby's success is a concern for anyone who
> sees it as diminishing Python's status. One of the reasons for
> Ruby's success is certainly the notion (originally advocated by Bruce
> Tate, if I'm not mistaken) that it is the "next Java" -- the language
>
This may seem like it's coming out of left field for a minute, but
bear with me.
There is no doubt that Ruby's success is a concern for anyone who
sees it as diminishing Python's status. One of the reasons for
Ruby's success is certainly the notion (originally advocated by Bruce
Tate, if
10 matches
Mail list logo
