Ruby on rails is a really nice environment though..
I've just finished porting my project from rails to python and webapp,
and it was a bit more work than I'd hoped.
Everyone has languages they're most familiar with. I think more
languages can't hurt, but I'd put other issues ahead of those (like
getting SSL in, and, simply, opening up the billing system so we can
start scaling indefinitely).
On Jun 27, 10:34 pm, iceanfire <iceanf...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, and as you will see by my self-description as a 'Rails Refugee',
I too enjoyed Rails for several years. I admit the 'natural language'
syntax of Ruby is pleasant, and I also hereby stipulate that there are
many excellent goodies provided by Rails which make web development a
rather painless experience.
Be that as it may, there are also many fine features in Python, and
it's a much more 'programmerly' language, proven by many years of
active use and improvement, albeit not a pure OO conception, but so
what? It just works!
The same could be said about Django, of course.
When you come right down to it, and I'm speaking as a hobbyist now,
Google has probably cornered the market on smart people, has proven
itself to be an indispensable tool for constant, everyday usage by the
entire world, and can bring any amount of resources to bear on solving
the relatively trivial problems posed by the App Engine deployment. In
other words, it just works!
The very fact that an amateur such as I can cobble together a
primitive app that 'just works' in a matter of a few weeks, using
quite a spartan API, release it 'into the jungle' of the wild Internet
with only minor hiccups, and have not a care in the world about
servers, backing up data, security, and so many other roadblocks that
were in my path with Rails proves the concept of what the Google App
Engine is trying to accomplish, namely to bring a state-of-the-art web
application infrastructure to a huge user base worldwide.
In fact, I can see a day in the not-too-distant-future when creating a
web app will be as easy for anyone to do as it is to create an email
account today.
So, yes, all things considered, learning Python and the datastore API
should be no obstacle at all for a professional programmer.
Furthermore, I bet DHH has been (quietly and secretly) hacking away
furiously for about two months now, and will soon release some kind of
framework for 'Appengine on Rails', so get on board, everyone!
On Jun 27, 3:29 pm, peterk <peter.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ruby on rails is a really nice environment though..
> I've just finished porting my project from rails to python and webapp,
> and it was a bit more work than I'd hoped.
> Everyone has languages they're most familiar with. I think more
> languages can't hurt, but I'd put other issues ahead of those (like
> getting SSL in, and, simply, opening up the billing system so we can
> start scaling indefinitely).
> On Jun 27, 10:34 pm, iceanfire <iceanf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree (even though I use to be a PHP developer and never understood
> > python until google appengine came out).
> > On Jun 27, 4:25 pm, Aral <a...@aralbalkan.com> wrote:
> > > I wholeheartedly agree.
> > > Aral
> > > On Jun 27, 8:53 pm, Jonathan Feinberg <e.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
By its nature this will always be a controversial issue (as the
confrontational first comment on the blog post shows). I think it's
important to bear in mind that the people who starred the "give us
more languages" issues are generally not the people who are currently
using App Engine.
It will be great when there are more languages available, and everyone
is happy. I come from the LAMP world myself, and initially starred the
PHP issue. But I've removed my star from it now. It seems obvious that
it's far more urgent for some of the fundamental limitations on the
system to be dealt with first.
Lack of support for files over 1Mb is a killer for me. My app is
completely useless until this limitation is lifted, so I'm putting a
lot of faith in Google by investing my time and energy in learning a
system that's entirely new to me. Likewise, until we are able to pay
for extra resources, our apps are little more than proofs-of-concept.
I wonder, do we really know that the App Engine team are prioritising
the language issues over everything else? We know they said they'll
work on the issues with higher numbers first, but I would be surprised
if they hadn't deliberately excluded these issues from that principle,
at least for now.
What I'd really like to see is a statement from the App Engine team
letting us know what they're working on. As a developer, I know how
annoying it can be having to constantly report back to needy users
when what you really want to be doing is coding, but it would be great
to know what their priorities are.
The addition of languages other than Python is, in the long term,
pretty much inevitable. They stated their intention to support other
languages pretty much on day one, and the "runtime" field in app.yaml
suggest that they had this intention long before anyone was able to
star a single issue.
Despite this, and despite all the stars in the issue tracker, I don't
think you need to worry about Google's priorities here. While adding
other languages might a very important goal for Google, they haven't
been treating as if it were a very urgent one. There's no indication
that they've been ingoring more pressing issues, like those that
affect the reliabity of the service.
While there might be a team of developers currently dedicated to
adding support for PHP or Java or some other language, I doubt that
simply throwing in more manpower to work on other issues will get them
fixed that much faster. Especially if those developers don't know
Python. Also, I suspect a fair number of App Engine's limitations and
problems are the result of that fact that it's dependent on a number
of Google's proprietary internal technologies. Technologies that an
entirely different set of developers is responsible for maintaining,
and who unfortunately have their own set of priorities.
I am against php in general. I think it should not be supported in
general as it is bad, hacky, misleading language. (magic_quotes,
register globals, etc. I know PHP6 would not have it)
Java is different from all other languages in general and it is
important to have it to compete with MS .NET datacenter.
It is obvious the that issue #1 would be implemented. If you will read
issue comments carefully you may even notice time frame for java
support implementation. (4 month - 1 year)
--------------------------------
I agree that SSL support and paid account support are most important
features.
On Jun 28, 12:17 pm, Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> The addition of languages other than Python is, in the long term,
> pretty much inevitable. They stated their intention to support other
> languages pretty much on day one, and the "runtime" field in app.yaml
> suggest that they had this intention long before anyone was able to
> star a single issue.
> Despite this, and despite all the stars in the issue tracker, I don't
> think you need to worry about Google's priorities here. While adding
> other languages might a very important goal for Google, they haven't
> been treating as if it were a very urgent one. There's no indication
> that they've been ingoring more pressing issues, like those that
> affect the reliabity of the service.
> While there might be a team of developers currently dedicated to
> adding support for PHP or Java or some other language, I doubt that
> simply throwing in more manpower to work on other issues will get them
> fixed that much faster. Especially if those developers don't know
> Python. Also, I suspect a fair number of App Engine's limitations and
> problems are the result of that fact that it's dependent on a number
> of Google's proprietary internal technologies. Technologies that an
> entirely different set of developers is responsible for maintaining,
> and who unfortunately have their own set of priorities.
I also agree, 100%, it's amazing how fast one can learn and begin the
use of python and how clean is the resultant code ...It has the best
of several worlds; pascal, java, PHP... any further effort could be
for adding python libraries support and python perfomance improvement
and not multilanguage resources dispersion
Best regards,
Walter
On Jun 27, 4:53 pm, Jonathan Feinberg <e.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
I wouldn't go as far as limiting GAE to only python (although I
wouldn't mind ;-),
but I would surely rule out those languages developed with a "kitchen-
sink" way.
PHP is the first that comes to mind. The problem with it is is that it
was born as a hack to get little web apps done,
but it's not a general purpose programming language, and it shows.
I would also rule out Java because... well, because it's Java!
I wouldn't mind seeing ruby implemented, because it has many
similarities with python and seems to hit the same spot.
Why don't you people just shut up and continue developing your apps.
If you love python use it. Don't ask others to join you. I love python
but I need to use another language. Even if there are hundred
languages supported by GAE it will never bring any problem to all of
you.
On Jun 28, 3:53 am, Jonathan Feinberg <e.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
Honestly guys, this whole thread is based on what developers think,
and the technical pros and cons to adding more languages and what the
technical costs would be. Key word in all of this is "technical".
Whether or not, and when, to add more language support to AppEngine
will be based on business choices. If AppEngine is Python only, how
much will cost compared to if it support multiple languages? That's
just the way it is.
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:51 AM, babylon <babylon2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why don't you people just shut up and continue developing your apps. > If you love python use it. Don't ask others to join you. I love python > but I need to use another language. Even if there are hundred > languages supported by GAE it will never bring any problem to all of > you.
Don't get us wrong, we like GAE. That's why we care it should have
better Python support before diluting efforts on other languages and
frameworks.
Many of the major Python templating engines are not supported yet.
Major frameworks besides Django are not working (or even their
components.) SSL support is missing and not even stated if planned or
not. No scheduled jobs. Static files are quite limited on count and
sizes.
Those issues compose into bigger problems, for example Django normally
uses templates and other things on filesystem and it's easy to end up
consuming the file limit quota. (It's painful to make a Django
template DB loader due to its non-modular design, just have a look at
existing modifications out there, incredibly complicated.)
My/our feeling, GAE is 95% there for release but there's a large
amount of people making pressure (top starred issues) on features for
v2 before v1 is completed. If negative stars on tracker were possible
("black hole") I bet the top ranked issues list would look very
different.
Alejo
On Jun 28, 4:51 pm, babylon <babylon2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why don't you people just shut up and continue developing your apps.
> If you love python use it. Don't ask others to join you. I love python
> but I need to use another language. Even if there are hundred
> languages supported by GAE it will never bring any problem to all of
> you.
> On Jun 28, 3:53 am, Jonathan Feinberg <e.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
Diluting effort ... if you had any idea with the GAE team looked like, perhaps you could share with us, since as far as I know, as far as anyone knows, it's just a black hole. For all we know they could have the resources, and be scheduled to, deliver 22 languages tomorrow, including full Python support. Or maybe the staff consists of just the few Googlers we see answering questions, but somehow that seems ridiculous.
Rather than make lame arguments against enhancing GAE because it doesn't suit your particular purposes, why not spend some time researching the actual ongoings of the GAE team, rather than complaining pointlessly in a public forum?
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Ale <joeplat...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Don't get us wrong, we like GAE. That's why we care it should have > better Python support before diluting efforts on other languages and > frameworks.
> Many of the major Python templating engines are not supported yet. > Major frameworks besides Django are not working (or even their > components.) SSL support is missing and not even stated if planned or > not. No scheduled jobs. Static files are quite limited on count and > sizes.
> Those issues compose into bigger problems, for example Django normally > uses templates and other things on filesystem and it's easy to end up > consuming the file limit quota. (It's painful to make a Django > template DB loader due to its non-modular design, just have a look at > existing modifications out there, incredibly complicated.)
> My/our feeling, GAE is 95% there for release but there's a large > amount of people making pressure (top starred issues) on features for > v2 before v1 is completed. If negative stars on tracker were possible > ("black hole") I bet the top ranked issues list would look very > different.
> Alejo
> On Jun 28, 4:51 pm, babylon <babylon2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Why don't you people just shut up and continue developing your apps. > > If you love python use it. Don't ask others to join you. I love python > > but I need to use another language. Even if there are hundred > > languages supported by GAE it will never bring any problem to all of > > you.
> > On Jun 28, 3:53 am, Jonathan Feinberg <e.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why don't you people just shut up and continue developing your apps.
> If you love python use it. Don't ask others to join you. I love python
> but I need to use another language. Even if there are hundred
> languages supported by GAE it will never bring any problem to all of
> you.
> On Jun 28, 3:53 am, Jonathan Feinberg <e.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
Although i am not really here to debate which language GAE should or shouldn't support, i think it is rather asinine to _not_ think that supporting multiple languages will weaken development progress. Time spent developing GAE for PHP,et al, is not time spent adding new features to GAE. Simply put, there is no way around it. Now whether or not this is a huge deal i am not discussing, because im not getting drawn into a pissing contest. I am just making the point that no matter how big the dev team is, taking any manpower away from developing new features for GAE, is just that, and there is no way around the argument.
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Andrew Badera <and...@badera.us> wrote: > Diluting effort ... if you had any idea with the GAE team looked like, > perhaps you could share with us, since as far as I know, as far as anyone > knows, it's just a black hole. For all we know they could have the > resources, and be scheduled to, deliver 22 languages tomorrow, including > full Python support. Or maybe the staff consists of just the few Googlers we > see answering questions, but somehow that seems ridiculous.
> Rather than make lame arguments against enhancing GAE because it doesn't > suit your particular purposes, why not spend some time researching the > actual ongoings of the GAE team, rather than complaining pointlessly in a > public forum?
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Ale <joeplat...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Don't get us wrong, we like GAE. That's why we care it should have >> better Python support before diluting efforts on other languages and >> frameworks.
>> Many of the major Python templating engines are not supported yet. >> Major frameworks besides Django are not working (or even their >> components.) SSL support is missing and not even stated if planned or >> not. No scheduled jobs. Static files are quite limited on count and >> sizes.
>> Those issues compose into bigger problems, for example Django normally >> uses templates and other things on filesystem and it's easy to end up >> consuming the file limit quota. (It's painful to make a Django >> template DB loader due to its non-modular design, just have a look at >> existing modifications out there, incredibly complicated.)
>> My/our feeling, GAE is 95% there for release but there's a large >> amount of people making pressure (top starred issues) on features for >> v2 before v1 is completed. If negative stars on tracker were possible >> ("black hole") I bet the top ranked issues list would look very >> different.
>> Alejo
>> On Jun 28, 4:51 pm, babylon <babylon2...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Why don't you people just shut up and continue developing your apps. >> > If you love python use it. Don't ask others to join you. I love python >> > but I need to use another language. Even if there are hundred >> > languages supported by GAE it will never bring any problem to all of >> > you.
>> > On Jun 28, 3:53 am, Jonathan Feinberg <e.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ross Ridge wrote:
>The addition of languages other than Python is, in the long term,
>pretty much inevitable. They stated their intention to support other
>languages pretty much on day one, and the "runtime" field in app.yaml
>suggest that they had this intention long before anyone was able to
>star a single issue.
Stating that intention would even make sense without any concrete
plans to support other languages. Or in other words: saying "We'll be
Python only for now" would've been a terrible mistake - regardless of
what the actual plans are.
I really don't think support for other languages will happen anytime
soon. But what do I know...
With zero knowledge as to how the GAE team is structured, what resources are dedicated to it, and what the timeline looks like, it's pretty asinine to make any absolute statements, period. No way around the argument.
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Lee O <lee...@gmail.com> wrote: > Although i am not really here to debate which language GAE should or > shouldn't support, i think it is rather asinine to _not_ think that > supporting multiple languages will weaken development progress. Time spent > developing GAE for PHP,et al, is not time spent adding new features to GAE. > Simply put, there is no way around it. Now whether or not this is a huge > deal i am not discussing, because im not getting drawn into a pissing > contest. I am just making the point that no matter how big the dev team is, > taking any manpower away from developing new features for GAE, is just that, > and there is no way around the argument.
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Andrew Badera <and...@badera.us> wrote:
>> Diluting effort ... if you had any idea with the GAE team looked like, >> perhaps you could share with us, since as far as I know, as far as anyone >> knows, it's just a black hole. For all we know they could have the >> resources, and be scheduled to, deliver 22 languages tomorrow, including >> full Python support. Or maybe the staff consists of just the few Googlers we >> see answering questions, but somehow that seems ridiculous.
>> Rather than make lame arguments against enhancing GAE because it doesn't >> suit your particular purposes, why not spend some time researching the >> actual ongoings of the GAE team, rather than complaining pointlessly in a >> public forum?
>> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Ale <joeplat...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Don't get us wrong, we like GAE. That's why we care it should have >>> better Python support before diluting efforts on other languages and >>> frameworks.
>>> Many of the major Python templating engines are not supported yet. >>> Major frameworks besides Django are not working (or even their >>> components.) SSL support is missing and not even stated if planned or >>> not. No scheduled jobs. Static files are quite limited on count and >>> sizes.
>>> Those issues compose into bigger problems, for example Django normally >>> uses templates and other things on filesystem and it's easy to end up >>> consuming the file limit quota. (It's painful to make a Django >>> template DB loader due to its non-modular design, just have a look at >>> existing modifications out there, incredibly complicated.)
>>> My/our feeling, GAE is 95% there for release but there's a large >>> amount of people making pressure (top starred issues) on features for >>> v2 before v1 is completed. If negative stars on tracker were possible >>> ("black hole") I bet the top ranked issues list would look very >>> different.
>>> Alejo
>>> On Jun 28, 4:51 pm, babylon <babylon2...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Why don't you people just shut up and continue developing your apps. >>> > If you love python use it. Don't ask others to join you. I love python >>> > but I need to use another language. Even if there are hundred >>> > languages supported by GAE it will never bring any problem to all of >>> > you.
>>> > On Jun 28, 3:53 am, Jonathan Feinberg <e.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 28, 12:32 pm, Ale <joeplat...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Don't get us wrong, we like GAE. That's why we care it should have
> better Python support before diluting efforts on other languages and
> frameworks.
> Many of the major Python templating engines are not supported yet.
Not GAE's problem. It's not their responsibility to make those work
with bigtable, it's up to contributors to get it working.
> Major frameworks besides Django are not working (or even their
> components.)
Once again, not their problem.
> SSL support is missing and not even stated if planned or
> not.
That has nothing to do with Python or other language support.
> No scheduled jobs.
Once again, nothing to do with language support. And you can work
around that with your code. People have been working around not having
access to cron on shared web hosts for over a decade. You include a
global function that checks the time, and checks job status. If it's
past a certain and the job hasn't run, flag the job as run, then run
it.
> Static files are quite limited on count and
> sizes.
And they will be for other languages as well. Not a language specific
problem.
> Those issues compose into bigger problems, for example Django normally
> uses templates and other things on filesystem and it's easy to end up
> consuming the file limit quota. (It's painful to make a Django
> template DB loader due to its non-modular design, just have a look at
> existing modifications out there, incredibly complicated.)
> My/our feeling, GAE is 95% there for release but there's a large
> amount of people making pressure (top starred issues) on features for
> v2 before v1 is completed. If negative stars on tracker were possible
> ("black hole") I bet the top ranked issues list would look very
> different.
> Alejo
> On Jun 28, 4:51 pm, babylon <babylon2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why don't you people just shut up and continue developing your apps.
> > If you love python use it. Don't ask others to join you. I love python
> > but I need to use another language. Even if there are hundred
> > languages supported by GAE it will never bring any problem to all of
> > you.
> > On Jun 28, 3:53 am, Jonathan Feinberg <e.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, and as you will see by my self-description as a 'Rails Refugee',
> I too enjoyed Rails for several years. I admit the 'natural language'
> syntax of Ruby is pleasant, and I also hereby stipulate that there are
> many excellent goodies provided by Rails which make web development a
> rather painless experience.
> Be that as it may, there are also many fine features in Python, and
> it's a much more 'programmerly' language, proven by many years of
> active use and improvement, albeit not a pure OO conception, but so
> what? It just works!
> The same could be said about Django, of course.
> When you come right down to it, and I'm speaking as a hobbyist now,
> Google has probably cornered the market on smart people, has proven
> itself to be an indispensable tool for constant, everyday usage by the
> entire world, and can bring any amount of resources to bear on solving
> the relatively trivial problems posed by the App Engine deployment. In
> other words, it just works!
> The very fact that an amateur such as I can cobble together a
> primitive app that 'just works' in a matter of a few weeks, using
> quite a spartan API, release it 'into the jungle' of the wild Internet
> with only minor hiccups, and have not a care in the world about
> servers, backing up data, security, and so many other roadblocks that
> were in my path with Rails proves the concept of what the Google App
> Engine is trying to accomplish, namely to bring a state-of-the-art web
> application infrastructure to a huge user base worldwide.
> In fact, I can see a day in the not-too-distant-future when creating a
> web app will be as easy for anyone to do as it is to create an email
> account today.
> So, yes, all things considered, learning Python and the datastore API
> should be no obstacle at all for a professional programmer.
> Furthermore, I bet DHH has been (quietly and secretly) hacking away
> furiously for about two months now, and will soon release some kind of
> framework for 'Appengine on Rails', so get on board, everyone!
> On Jun 27, 3:29 pm, peterk <peter.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ruby on rails is a really nice environment though..
> > I've just finished porting my project from rails to python and webapp,
> > and it was a bit more work than I'd hoped.
> > Everyone has languages they're most familiar with. I think more
> > languages can't hurt, but I'd put other issues ahead of those (like
> > getting SSL in, and, simply, opening up the billing system so we can
> > start scaling indefinitely).
> > On Jun 27, 10:34 pm, iceanfire <iceanf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I agree (even though I use to be a PHP developer and never understood
> > > python until google appengine came out).
> > > On Jun 27, 4:25 pm, Aral <a...@aralbalkan.com> wrote:
> > > > I wholeheartedly agree.
> > > > Aral
> > > > On Jun 27, 8:53 pm, Jonathan Feinberg <e.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you need an "AppEngine for Rails", check out Heroku.
> On Jun 27, 8:49 pm, g-man <gregor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, and as you will see by my self-description as a 'Rails Refugee',
> > I too enjoyed Rails for several years. I admit the 'natural language'
> > syntax of Ruby is pleasant, and I also hereby stipulate that there are
> > many excellent goodies provided by Rails which make web development a
> > rather painless experience.
> > Be that as it may, there are also many fine features in Python, and
> > it's a much more 'programmerly' language, proven by many years of
> > active use and improvement, albeit not a pure OO conception, but so
> > what? It just works!
> > The same could be said about Django, of course.
> > When you come right down to it, and I'm speaking as a hobbyist now,
> > Google has probably cornered the market on smart people, has proven
> > itself to be an indispensable tool for constant, everyday usage by the
> > entire world, and can bring any amount of resources to bear on solving
> > the relatively trivial problems posed by the App Engine deployment. In
> > other words, it just works!
> > The very fact that an amateur such as I can cobble together a
> > primitive app that 'just works' in a matter of a few weeks, using
> > quite a spartan API, release it 'into the jungle' of the wild Internet
> > with only minor hiccups, and have not a care in the world about
> > servers, backing up data, security, and so many other roadblocks that
> > were in my path with Rails proves the concept of what the Google App
> > Engine is trying to accomplish, namely to bring a state-of-the-art web
> > application infrastructure to a huge user base worldwide.
> > In fact, I can see a day in the not-too-distant-future when creating a
> > web app will be as easy for anyone to do as it is to create an email
> > account today.
> > So, yes, all things considered, learning Python and the datastore API
> > should be no obstacle at all for a professional programmer.
> > Furthermore, I bet DHH has been (quietly and secretly) hacking away
> > furiously for about two months now, and will soon release some kind of
> > framework for 'Appengine on Rails', so get on board, everyone!
> > On Jun 27, 3:29 pm, peterk <peter.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ruby on rails is a really nice environment though..
> > > I've just finished porting my project from rails to python and webapp,
> > > and it was a bit more work than I'd hoped.
> > > Everyone has languages they're most familiar with. I think more
> > > languages can't hurt, but I'd put other issues ahead of those (like
> > > getting SSL in, and, simply, opening up the billing system so we can
> > > start scaling indefinitely).
> > > On Jun 27, 10:34 pm, iceanfire <iceanf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I agree (even though I use to be a PHP developer and never understood
> > > > python until google appengine came out).
> > > > On Jun 27, 4:25 pm, Aral <a...@aralbalkan.com> wrote:
> > > > > I wholeheartedly agree.
> > > > > Aral
> > > > > On Jun 27, 8:53 pm, Jonathan Feinberg <e.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think this issue should be discussed at all. It's not our job.
GAE development speed will always the same no matter what the plan is.
If there is more request, I believe Google will allocate more
engineers to work on it. So, no one should worry about this. Let
Google decide which is better for GAE.
On Jun 29, 6:02 am, luismgz <luis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 jun, 12:51, babylon <babylon2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why don't you people just shut up and continue developing your apps.
> > If you love python use it. Don't ask others to join you. I love python
> > but I need to use another language. Even if there are hundred
> > languages supported by GAE it will never bring any problem to all of
> > you.
> > On Jun 28, 3:53 am, Jonathan Feinberg <e.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
|
