Python should try to displace Java
Brandon J. Van Every
to. Feel free, but also try not to knee-jerk about them. As someone who
programmed DEC Alpha in 1998, and who sees the sorry state of CPUs nowadays,
I can definitely say that better technology doesn't always win. In fact, it
doesn't *usually* win. Python needs to look to its strategic marketing and
product positioning if it expects to survive in the rough and tumble world
of mainstream industry.
Points to note:
- in 5 years, nobody will be doing significant amounts of new application
development in C++. The writing is on the wall: garbage collection is
essential. Any C++ code will be support and legacy libraries.
- Microsoft is already implementing said strategy across all levels of the
company today. Microsoft developers don't do much C++ development anymore.
Various upcoming products are being written entirely in C#.
- The "higher level language" playing field is crowded: C#, Java, Perl, and
Python. Mainstream industry does not need and will not make room for 4
higher level languages. Any of these languages has to grow at some other
language's expense.
- Python will never displace C# on Windows. It's Microsoft's home turf and
you can't fight directly with The Beast. You will see UNIX boxes running
Python, not Windows boxes.
- Sun is about to die. It has done nothing for anyone lately and has no
further tricks up its sleeve.
- Sun has failed to make Java live up to its claims of universality. Java
is for all intents and purposes simply a widespread programming language,
not a portable computing environment. Portable computing environments are,
in general, a pipe dream as long as Microsoft is around. It will always be
Windows vs. open standards.
- Java is proprietary. Python is open source. Open Source is the best shot
that anyone has at competing with Windows.
- Perl is open source and sysadmins won't be giving it up any time soon.
Perl is optimal for their jobs, the capabilities of Python are a non-sell.
- Ergo, Java is the weakling of the litter for Python to attack.
- Alternately, if you look at this in real world marketing terms, Python is
the weakling of the litter that must defend itself. I know that will make
various Python idealists upset, but that's the economic reality. Merit
doesn't win in this game. Java is the next weakest langauge so that's whose
lunch Python should try to eat.
- No, this isn't the appraisal of a Microsoftie who wants to set Python and
Java at each others' throats to conquer both. :-) I'm just offering a
realistic picture of what your options are, if you don't want to become a
"gee whiz, wasn't that nice!" technology. Like I said, I've lived through
it already. Don't talk to me about merit carrying the day. Learn from
history, or you are doomed to repeat it.
--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
Istvan Albert
but you try too hard and it shows,
Simon Wittber (Maptek)
>still trolling eh,
>
>but you try too hard and it shows,
It is fun to watch though!
Brandon J. Van Every
> still trolling eh,
>
> but you try too hard and it shows,
I asked you not to knee-jerk on what I wrote, but you couldn't do it. So
welcome to my killfile.
I didn't expect emotional idealists to handle it, that's why they're
emotional idealists. Pragmatic engineers can get on with whether the
strategic analysis has merit or not. I don't know what your corporate
culture is, sitting in newsgroups plotting the future of a nice open source
langauge. Maybe you think the whole world runs on volunteerism and good
vibes. But in the big iron corporate background I come from, people sit
down and have powwows about what the strategic threats are. You can deny
the existence of strategic threats all you like, and stay in a comfortable
universe of engineering merit. That will last until... commercial reality
washes over you and your career like a tidal wave.
Do you want to be earning good money on your Python knowledge 10 years from
now? Then pay attention. I guarantee you that Microsoft has powwows about
C#, Java, and Python.
Doug Tolton
<vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote:
>I'm going to make a number of points which I'm sure many people will object
>to. Feel free, but also try not to knee-jerk about them. As someone who
>programmed DEC Alpha in 1998, and who sees the sorry state of CPUs nowadays,
>I can definitely say that better technology doesn't always win. In fact, it
>doesn't *usually* win. Python needs to look to its strategic marketing and
>product positioning if it expects to survive in the rough and tumble world
>of mainstream industry.
Ok, this sounds like a troll to begin with, but I'm bored and
irritable so I'll have a go at it.
Better technology doesn't always win in the short term, however it
almost always wins in the long term. You are looking at something
from a very narrow time period. Something that was better 5 years
ago, but sucks today wasn't definitively a better technology.
>
>Points to note:
>
>- in 5 years, nobody will be doing significant amounts of new application
>development in C++. The writing is on the wall: garbage collection is
>essential. Any C++ code will be support and legacy libraries.
That's a ridiculous blanket statement. People will be doing C++
development for a long time beyond that. There are people still
writing Cobol for crying out loud. As you said, it's not always about
the best technology, quite frequently it's about what people know, and
there are a lot of people that know and are comfortable with C++
>
>- Microsoft is already implementing said strategy across all levels of the
>company today. Microsoft developers don't do much C++ development anymore.
>Various upcoming products are being written entirely in C#.
<sigh> just what we need. More buggy slow products from MS that have
Memory Leaks the size of the Mississippi. C# is not a good
development platform yet. Heck they are practically still in the
standard MS beta period. Everyone knows not to use a MS product on
version 1.0
>
>- The "higher level language" playing field is crowded: C#, Java, Perl, and
>Python. Mainstream industry does not need and will not make room for 4
>higher level languages. Any of these languages has to grow at some other
>language's expense.
This statement is really vague, and has almost no factual basis. If
there were only four programming languages the world would be a very
dull place. You forgot to mention Delphi, Visual Basic, Power Builder
and a host of others. There is room for a lot more than 4 programming
languages.
>
>- Python will never displace C# on Windows. It's Microsoft's home turf and
>you can't fight directly with The Beast. You will see UNIX boxes running
>Python, not Windows boxes.
That's a bold statement, considering the abysmal adoption rate of C#.
C# isn't the dominant windows programming language currently, rather
its Visual Basic. Java has far more applications written for Windows
than C# does. MS really shot themselves in the foot when they went to
dotnet, essentially the adopted the Java platform 8 years after Java.
Now they are playing catchup with an inferior product. I doubt
they'll ever catch up to Java overall.
>
>- Sun is about to die. It has done nothing for anyone lately and has no
>further tricks up its sleeve.
People have been saying this for years. I'll believe it when I see
it.
>
>- Sun has failed to make Java live up to its claims of universality. Java
>is for all intents and purposes simply a widespread programming language,
>not a portable computing environment. Portable computing environments are,
>in general, a pipe dream as long as Microsoft is around. It will always be
>Windows vs. open standards.
They must give you a good edjumacation at the Redmond campus. Java is
by far the best portable computing environment available. These
claims are actually laughable. You might want to actually look at a
technology before you bash it ignorantly next time. Microsoft is
losing ground *big time* to open standards. We'll see how things play
out in the next 20 years though. Open Source will be around that
long, will Microsoft in it's present incarnation?
>
>- Java is proprietary. Python is open source. Open Source is the best shot
>that anyone has at competing with Windows.
Java is only semi-proprietary. It's not the same proprietary you get
when using a MS product, because they are the *only* vendor. Still, I
agree Open Source is the better way in the long run.
>
>- Perl is open source and sysadmins won't be giving it up any time soon.
>Perl is optimal for their jobs, the capabilities of Python are a non-sell.
Perl is a great language for some things, but it really sucks for
other things. The Sysadmins I know would love to use Python. It's
capabilities are a non-sell? mm...if you think being able to read
your code two days after writing it is a non-sell, well ok.
>
>- Ergo, Java is the weakling of the litter for Python to attack.
No factual basis for this statement. Java and Python are really
entirely different things. Python is meant as a scripting language,
Java is a Systems programming language. It is meant as an alternative
to C++, Python isn't.
>
>- Alternately, if you look at this in real world marketing terms, Python is
>the weakling of the litter that must defend itself. I know that will make
>various Python idealists upset, but that's the economic reality. Merit
>doesn't win in this game. Java is the next weakest langauge so that's whose
>lunch Python should try to eat.
Who does Python have to defend itself against? Python is Open Source.
The only way it's going to die is if everyone stops developing it and
it stagnates. If that hapens it will be because something
*significantly* better came along. Python doesn't have to defend
itself, your Microsoft background is showing through here. C# is by
far the weakest language of the four. It is buggy, slow and immature.
It has the smallest user base, the least amount of industry backing
and a community that is rising up against it's benefactor. I think
you dramatically overstate it's chances. Historically Microsoft
switches technologies every 3 or 4 years. That only gives C# about 2
years to go before it's dead in the water like every other MS
"Innovation".
>
>- No, this isn't the appraisal of a Microsoftie who wants to set Python and
>Java at each others' throats to conquer both. :-) I'm just offering a
>realistic picture of what your options are, if you don't want to become a
>"gee whiz, wasn't that nice!" technology. Like I said, I've lived through
>it already. Don't talk to me about merit carrying the day. Learn from
>history, or you are doomed to repeat it.
If you subsitute the word propaganda for appraisal, and "highly
dogmatic" for realistic you'd be closer to the mark. Historically
those with the best technology and the best economic system prevail
against inefficient and inferior models. Since there wasn't really a
cogent thesis I can't reject it per se, but your arguments are silly
at best.
Oh well, it was fun going through that ridiculous argument. And it
killed some time while my Sql Script was running. Thanks for the
diversion.
Michael Geary
>
> but you try too hard and it shows,
I'm new to Python and new to this group, so I'm not familiar with any
previous discussions that have taken place. All I know about Brandon is what
he posted in this particular message.
As someone who has made the wrong bet on strategic directions more than a
few times in the 35 years that I've been developing software, I found his
comments, along with Doug's reply, to be interesting and thought-provoking.
I am being educated here. Is that what trolls do? :-)
-Mike
Brandon J. Van Every
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:43:08 -0700, "Brandon J. Van Every"
>>
>> application development in C++. The writing is on the wall: garbage
>> collection is essential. Any C++ code will be support and legacy
>> libraries.
>
> That's a ridiculous blanket statement. People will be doing C++
> development for a long time beyond that. There are people still
> writing Cobol for crying out loud.
Do you honestly believe that people are doing a significant amount of new
application development in Cobol, as opposed to maintenance work?
>> - Microsoft is already implementing said strategy across all levels
>> of the company today. Microsoft developers don't do much C++
>> development anymore. Various upcoming products are being written
>> entirely in C#.
>
> <sigh> just what we need. More buggy slow products from MS that have
> Memory Leaks the size of the Mississippi. C# is not a good
> development platform yet. Heck they are practically still in the
> standard MS beta period. Everyone knows not to use a MS product on
> version 1.0
Ignore the trend at your peril. A MS product is one thing. A MS initiative
across the entire company is quite another. The last time they did that,
Internet Explorer put Netscape in the doghouse. Never, ever, ignore or
diminish what Microsoft decides to do as an entire company.
>> - The "higher level language" playing field is crowded: C#, Java,
>> Perl, and Python. Mainstream industry does not need and will not
>> make room for 4 higher level languages. Any of these languages has
>> to grow at some other language's expense.
>
> This statement is really vague, and has almost no factual basis. If
> there were only four programming languages the world would be a very
> dull place. You forgot to mention Delphi, Visual Basic, Power Builder
> and a host of others. There is room for a lot more than 4 programming
> languages.
Actually, Visual Basic vs. C# would be a good discussion in another
newsgroup. Because the books about .NET Framework that I'm reading, show
how VB is being modded and borgged to fit the Intermediate Language. Which
is essentially C#. I wonder if it would be reasonable to say that in 5
years, nobody will be doing new app development in VB, it'll all be C#? But
I'll take that up with the VB crowd.
>> - Python will never displace C# on Windows. It's Microsoft's home
>> turf and you can't fight directly with The Beast. You will see UNIX
>> boxes running Python, not Windows boxes.
>
> That's a bold statement, considering the abysmal adoption rate of C#.
Within Microsoft, the adoption of C# is universal. That tends to have a
powerful effect on ISV Windows development over time.
> C# isn't the dominant windows programming language currently, rather
> its Visual Basic. Java has far more applications written for Windows
> than C# does. MS really shot themselves in the foot when they went to
> dotnet, essentially the adopted the Java platform 8 years after Java.
> Now they are playing catchup with an inferior product. I doubt
> they'll ever catch up to Java overall.
The problem with your thinking here is there's very clear evidence that
Microsoft can and does catch up to and surpass technologies that they have
fumblingly cloned. In fact, that's the basic Microsoft corporate
philosophy. Version 1.0 sucks, 2.0 is ok... 5.0 actually is a really good
product and then the competition can't catch up anymore. Example: DirectX.
When it started it was complete garbage. Nowadays it is technically
superior to OpenGL in most areas. Why they don't finally implement doubles
and put OpenGL out of its misery, I'm not sure.
Why can MS catch up? Because Open Source people assume their technological
superiority and rest on their laurels. They think they don't have to market
because they are technically superior. Also, their ranks are populated with
strong engineers who don't *like* marketing, as a matter of basic
personality. They never get it in their heads that they have to
counter-market to some degree in order to hold the line. If you don't do
any marketing, Microsoft completely out-markets you and then you die,
technical merit or not.
>> - Sun is about to die. It has done nothing for anyone lately and
>> has no further tricks up its sleeve.
>
> People have been saying this for years. I'll believe it when I see it.
Read a paper.
>> - Sun has failed to make Java live up to its claims of universality.
>> Java is for all intents and purposes simply a widespread programming
>> language, not a portable computing environment. Portable computing
>> environments are, in general, a pipe dream as long as Microsoft is
>> around. It will always be Windows vs. open standards.
>
> They must give you a good edjumacation at the Redmond campus. Java is
> by far the best portable computing environment available.
Care to name a concrete example? A testimonial?
>> - Ergo, Java is the weakling of the litter for Python to attack.
>
> No factual basis for this statement. Java and Python are really
> entirely different things. Python is meant as a scripting language,
> Java is a Systems programming language. It is meant as an alternative
> to C++, Python isn't.
You're saying Python isn't useful as a systems language? Then it is already
dead.
> Who does Python have to defend itself against? Python is Open Source.
> The only way it's going to die is if everyone stops developing it and
> it stagnates.
You got it! And development stops when a langauge loses all meaningful
mindshare. What is the battle of mindshare? A marketing battle. It is not
a technological battle, except in the grossest terms of complete
incompetence. Time and again, the marketplace has proven that kludgy but
well marketed products carry the day. They only fail when they absolutely
can't do the job.
> If that hapens it will be because something *significantly* better came
along.
No, it is not an engineering meritocracy. Look at a company like DEC.
Wonderful technology company. Couldn't market its way out of a paper bag.
That's a warning for this c.l.p crowd. Don't sit around congratulating
yourselves on how superior your techology is. Recognize the strategic
competition and market against it.
> Python doesn't have to defend
> itself, your Microsoft background is showing through here. C# is by
> far the weakest language of the four. It is buggy, slow and immature.
> It has the smallest user base, the least amount of industry backing
and is 100% backed by all the resources of Microsoft. It will not go away,
and its shortcomings will be fixed at a blistering pace.
> and a community that is rising up against it's benefactor.
Huh? Care to explain?
> I think
> you dramatically overstate it's chances. Historically Microsoft
> switches technologies every 3 or 4 years. That only gives C# about 2
> years to go before it's dead in the water like every other MS
> "Innovation".
What part of "100% committment across the company" don't you understand?
You really are blind. You don't live in Redmond, you can't conceive of
having access to this level of information. And who in c.l.p woudl tell you
these things?
Well, you've been warned.
> Historically
> those with the best technology and the best economic system prevail
> against inefficient and inferior models.
You have *got* to be kidding me. Intel??!? Windows??!?
Doug Tolton
<vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote:
>Doug Tolton wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:43:08 -0700, "Brandon J. Van Every"
>>>
>>> - in 5 years, nobody will be doing significant amounts of new
>>> application development in C++. The writing is on the wall: garbage
>>> collection is essential. Any C++ code will be support and legacy
>>> libraries.
>>
>> That's a ridiculous blanket statement. People will be doing C++
>> development for a long time beyond that. There are people still
>> writing Cobol for crying out loud.
>
>Do you honestly believe that people are doing a significant amount of new
>application development in Cobol, as opposed to maintenance work?
Apparently MS does, they were promoting Cobol.net pretty heavily not
too long ago.
>
>>> - Microsoft is already implementing said strategy across all levels
>>> of the company today. Microsoft developers don't do much C++
>>> development anymore. Various upcoming products are being written
>>> entirely in C#.
>>
>> <sigh> just what we need. More buggy slow products from MS that have
>> Memory Leaks the size of the Mississippi. C# is not a good
>> development platform yet. Heck they are practically still in the
>> standard MS beta period. Everyone knows not to use a MS product on
>> version 1.0
>
>Ignore the trend at your peril. A MS product is one thing. A MS initiative
>across the entire company is quite another. The last time they did that,
>Internet Explorer put Netscape in the doghouse. Never, ever, ignore or
>diminish what Microsoft decides to do as an entire company.
Well, I can pretty much ignore and diminish MS all I want. The only
reason they beat Netscape was because of the *incredible* abuse of
monopoly powers coupled with the inept decision making of Netscape.
Netscape was great when it came out, but over time it started to suck
more and more and IE started to suck less and less. It wasn't because
MS was had better technology really, they just jacked people on the
backend if they ran a Netscape solution. Netscape ran out of money
and the ability compete.
How are they going to crush Mozilla, Chimera or Khtml? You keep
touting Mindshare. Whose mindshare is growing MS or Open Source? If
you can't answer that honestly then you really are trolling.
>
>>> - The "higher level language" playing field is crowded: C#, Java,
>>> Perl, and Python. Mainstream industry does not need and will not
>>> make room for 4 higher level languages. Any of these languages has
>>> to grow at some other language's expense.
>>
>> This statement is really vague, and has almost no factual basis. If
>> there were only four programming languages the world would be a very
>> dull place. You forgot to mention Delphi, Visual Basic, Power Builder
>> and a host of others. There is room for a lot more than 4 programming
>> languages.
>
>Actually, Visual Basic vs. C# would be a good discussion in another
>newsgroup. Because the books about .NET Framework that I'm reading, show
>how VB is being modded and borgged to fit the Intermediate Language. Which
>is essentially C#. I wonder if it would be reasonable to say that in 5
>years, nobody will be doing new app development in VB, it'll all be C#? But
>I'll take that up with the VB crowd.
That's good
>
>>> - Python will never displace C# on Windows. It's Microsoft's home
>>> turf and you can't fight directly with The Beast. You will see UNIX
>>> boxes running Python, not Windows boxes.
>>
>> That's a bold statement, considering the abysmal adoption rate of C#.
>
>Within Microsoft, the adoption of C# is universal. That tends to have a
>powerful effect on ISV Windows development over time.
Really, who cares what MS does? How does MS using C# affect Python?
You have yet to establish any kind of Causal connection.
Here it is straight, Python has been around going strong for over 10
years now, inspite of lack of a corporate pimp. Why is that? What is
it that MS is *suddenly* doing that is going to kill Python? Why is
the Python mindshare going to *suddenly* evaporate and go to C#? You
have nothing to back any of those statements up. They are pure
unadulterated BS.
>
>> C# isn't the dominant windows programming language currently, rather
>> its Visual Basic. Java has far more applications written for Windows
>> than C# does. MS really shot themselves in the foot when they went to
>> dotnet, essentially the adopted the Java platform 8 years after Java.
>> Now they are playing catchup with an inferior product. I doubt
>> they'll ever catch up to Java overall.
>
>The problem with your thinking here is there's very clear evidence that
>Microsoft can and does catch up to and surpass technologies that they have
>fumblingly cloned. In fact, that's the basic Microsoft corporate
>philosophy. Version 1.0 sucks, 2.0 is ok... 5.0 actually is a really good
>product and then the competition can't catch up anymore. Example: DirectX.
>When it started it was complete garbage. Nowadays it is technically
>superior to OpenGL in most areas. Why they don't finally implement doubles
>and put OpenGL out of its misery, I'm not sure.
I could be wrong but I didn't think OpenGL was open source. If it
isn't, your argument isn't really a good point then.
>
>Why can MS catch up? Because Open Source people assume their technological
>superiority and rest on their laurels. They think they don't have to market
>because they are technically superior. Also, their ranks are populated with
>strong engineers who don't *like* marketing, as a matter of basic
>personality. They never get it in their heads that they have to
>counter-market to some degree in order to hold the line. If you don't do
>any marketing, Microsoft completely out-markets you and then you die,
>technical merit or not.
Hmm...interesting point. Too bad there is simply no factual basis for
it. If Microsoft completely out markets everyone and they die, why
are there still so many Unix machines around? The only thing that has
made any headway against the Unix establishment is Linux. Not many
people switch and go to Windows 2000 Server from a Unix machine. A
lot of people go from windows to Linux though.
Ignore Open Source at your own peril
>
>>> - Sun is about to die. It has done nothing for anyone lately and
>>> has no further tricks up its sleeve.
>>
>> People have been saying this for years. I'll believe it when I see it.
>
>Read a paper.
Ohh...the paaaaper said it...now it must be true. They aren't out of
business until they are out of business.
>
>>> - Sun has failed to make Java live up to its claims of universality.
>>> Java is for all intents and purposes simply a widespread programming
>>> language, not a portable computing environment. Portable computing
>>> environments are, in general, a pipe dream as long as Microsoft is
>>> around. It will always be Windows vs. open standards.
>>
>> They must give you a good edjumacation at the Redmond campus. Java is
>> by far the best portable computing environment available.
>
>Care to name a concrete example? A testimonial?
Omg - it suprises me that anyone would argue this. Name a better
portable computing environment? Java is by *far* the most ubiquitous
environment. Seriously, name anything out there that is even close.
>
>>> - Ergo, Java is the weakling of the litter for Python to attack.
>>
>> No factual basis for this statement. Java and Python are really
>> entirely different things. Python is meant as a scripting language,
>> Java is a Systems programming language. It is meant as an alternative
>> to C++, Python isn't.
>
>You're saying Python isn't useful as a systems language? Then it is already
>dead.
man, you have no fear to pull stuff right out of your ass. You must
be a marketing guy.
Apparently we have different definitions of what dead is. I don't
know about you, but I would be fine with the python community staying
this size, shrinking or growing. To me its about the language, about
the elegance of the technology, about it's utility to me. Some people
just don't get that. I have no desire for Python to have the same
mind share as VB, because I don't want to have to answer all the
questions on how to write Hello World by people who probably have no
business programming in the first place. I'm sure that's an elitist
snob attitude, but I think MS does a greater disservice to people by
hiding the technical details and making them think they can run
mission critical services when they are in all reality ill equiped to
do so (Windows NT/2k, Sql Server, Exchange, C#...need I go on?)
>
>> Who does Python have to defend itself against? Python is Open Source.
>> The only way it's going to die is if everyone stops developing it and
>> it stagnates.
>
>You got it! And development stops when a langauge loses all meaningful
>mindshare. What is the battle of mindshare? A marketing battle. It is not
>a technological battle, except in the grossest terms of complete
>incompetence. Time and again, the marketplace has proven that kludgy but
>well marketed products carry the day. They only fail when they absolutely
>can't do the job.
>
Well development hasn't stopped, doesn't appeared to have slowed down.
In fact if I'm any judge it's been speeding up. Compare that to the
erosion in the MS world.
>> If that hapens it will be because something *significantly* better came
>along.
>
>No, it is not an engineering meritocracy. Look at a company like DEC.
>Wonderful technology company. Couldn't market its way out of a paper bag.
>That's a warning for this c.l.p crowd. Don't sit around congratulating
>yourselves on how superior your techology is. Recognize the strategic
>competition and market against it.
You completely miss the point man. Python and OSS isn't about
marketing to the masses. It's about giving us cool shit to work with.
People like you will never get that. But that's ok, because morons
like you who use languages and tools simply because they are popular
will continue to get owned when we face you head to head.
I don't mind Microsoft tools, because when I compete with the typical
MS zombie, I win everytime.
Microsoft didn't succeed due to Marketing. They didn't succeed due to
strategic positioning. They succeeded because they lied to IBM and
told them they had an Operating System. They got lucky and happened
to be at the right place at the right time. While the Unix world was
fractured and bickering.
>
>> Python doesn't have to defend
>> itself, your Microsoft background is showing through here. C# is by
>> far the weakest language of the four. It is buggy, slow and immature.
>> It has the smallest user base, the least amount of industry backing
>
>and is 100% backed by all the resources of Microsoft. It will not go away,
>and its shortcomings will be fixed at a blistering pace.
blistering?!? wtf are you talking about. MS doesn't do *anything* at
a blistering pace. Are you talking about how they've fixed all their
security flaws at a blistering pace? Or are you talking about how
they've fixed the optimization problems with Sql Server at a
blistering pace? Or are you talking about how it took DirectX till
version 8.0 to surpass OpenGL at version 1.0? The only relation MS
has to blisters is that they are like an STD.
>
>> and a community that is rising up against it's benefactor.
>
>Huh? Care to explain?
get a paper
>
>> I think
>> you dramatically overstate it's chances. Historically Microsoft
>> switches technologies every 3 or 4 years. That only gives C# about 2
>> years to go before it's dead in the water like every other MS
>> "Innovation".
>
>What part of "100% committment across the company" don't you understand?
>You really are blind. You don't live in Redmond, you can't conceive of
>having access to this level of information. And who in c.l.p woudl tell you
>these things?
>
What part of Open Source and *immune* to Microsoft don't you
understand? I think *you* are blinded by the shadow of redmond. Get
out into the real world, people who don't live in the shadow of the
tower don't tend to hold it in as high of regard.
>Well, you've been warned.
>
>> Historically
>> those with the best technology and the best economic system prevail
>> against inefficient and inferior models.
>
>You have *got* to be kidding me. Intel??!? Windows??!?
Obviously you *aren't* a student of history. You think that Windows
and Intel have won. You think Open Source developers are resting on
their laurels thinking smugly about their superiority. You are sadly
mistaken on about many things. MS won a battle, they certainly
haven't won the war.
Doug Tolton
Daniel Dittmar
that they sue SUN?
Daniel
Michael Sparks
> So what do you propose? To transfer the copyright of Python to SCO so
> that they sue SUN?
No, no, no. Transfer the copyrights of the Tim-bot & Martelli-bot to
Microsoft, the BFDL moves to OSDL which becomes aquired by Microsoft in as
swift turn about of face as their U-turn on the Internet. Python labs is
aquired by Lindows who acquire SCO once they've destroyed themselves, they
get infected by SCO Unix's viral Unix license (*) transmogrify into
SCO-TNG who then attack Microsoft who trounce them right royally in court,
but in a shock countermove are forced to buy everyone on the planet a pint
of their favourite beverage. Meanwhile the people working on open source
projects turn around and go "oh that's nice dear", and carry on working on
their pet projects.
Or something like that.
Michael.
(*) SCO described it this way somewhere. Probably from a website, so it
must be true. Definitely. Oh yes.
John J. Lee
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:43:08 -0700, "Brandon J. Van Every"
> <vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote:
[...]
> >- in 5 years, nobody will be doing significant amounts of new application
> >development in C++. The writing is on the wall: garbage collection is
> >essential. Any C++ code will be support and legacy libraries.
>
> That's a ridiculous blanket statement. People will be doing C++
> development for a long time beyond that. There are people still
[...]
You (like me) misread what he wrote, I suspect. *Application*
development, not development in general. I see no reason to disagree
that that would be sane (doesn't mean it's going to happen in five
years, of course).
> than C# does. MS really shot themselves in the foot when they went to
> dotnet, essentially the adopted the Java platform 8 years after Java.
> Now they are playing catchup with an inferior product. I doubt
> they'll ever catch up to Java overall.
Remains to be seen.
> >- Ergo, Java is the weakling of the litter for Python to attack.
>
> No factual basis for this statement. Java and Python are really
> entirely different things. Python is meant as a scripting language,
> Java is a Systems programming language. It is meant as an alternative
> to C++, Python isn't.
[...]
Well, that's certainly frequently debated.
John
Kim Petersen
> Doug Tolton wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:43:08 -0700, "Brandon J. Van Every"
>>
>>>- in 5 years, nobody will be doing significant amounts of new
>>>application development in C++. The writing is on the wall: garbage
>>>collection is essential. Any C++ code will be support and legacy
>>>libraries.
>>
>>That's a ridiculous blanket statement. People will be doing C++
>>development for a long time beyond that. There are people still
>>writing Cobol for crying out loud.
>
>
> Do you honestly believe that people are doing a significant amount of new
> application development in Cobol, as opposed to maintenance work?
You can bet your life on it. When you have a *very* large portfolio of
Cobol programs (and a lot of companies have) - then you know that you
cannot change to another programming language - without setting back the
development years - you might try and run a seperate developing line (we
do here) to catch up with the Cobol line (in several years).
>
>
>>>- Microsoft is already implementing said strategy across all levels
>>>of the company today. Microsoft developers don't do much C++
>>>development anymore. Various upcoming products are being written
>>>entirely in C#.
>>
>><sigh> just what we need. More buggy slow products from MS that have
>>Memory Leaks the size of the Mississippi. C# is not a good
>>development platform yet. Heck they are practically still in the
>>standard MS beta period. Everyone knows not to use a MS product on
>>version 1.0
>
>
> Ignore the trend at your peril. A MS product is one thing. A MS initiative
> across the entire company is quite another. The last time they did that,
> Internet Explorer put Netscape in the doghouse. Never, ever, ignore or
> diminish what Microsoft decides to do as an entire company.
There is a large difference between a product (IE) and a programming
language. All this reminds me of the hype first C++ and then Java got -
none of those are today all pervasive. (if your line of thought is
correct - then we *all* would be programming either VC++ or VB).
>>>- Python will never displace C# on Windows. It's Microsoft's home
>>>turf and you can't fight directly with The Beast. You will see UNIX
>>>boxes running Python, not Windows boxes.
>>
>>That's a bold statement, considering the abysmal adoption rate of C#.
>
>
> Within Microsoft, the adoption of C# is universal. That tends to have a
> powerful effect on ISV Windows development over time.
As far as i've read up on .NET/C# - the language doesn't matter - whats
to stop ppl continuing the programming language they've always used?
(eg. Cobol (which exists in several versions in .NET).
>
>
>>C# isn't the dominant windows programming language currently, rather
>>its Visual Basic. Java has far more applications written for Windows
>>than C# does. MS really shot themselves in the foot when they went to
>>dotnet, essentially the adopted the Java platform 8 years after Java.
>>Now they are playing catchup with an inferior product. I doubt
>>they'll ever catch up to Java overall.
>
>
> The problem with your thinking here is there's very clear evidence that
> Microsoft can and does catch up to and surpass technologies that they have
> fumblingly cloned. In fact, that's the basic Microsoft corporate
> philosophy. Version 1.0 sucks, 2.0 is ok... 5.0 actually is a really good
> product and then the competition can't catch up anymore. Example: DirectX.
> When it started it was complete garbage. Nowadays it is technically
> superior to OpenGL in most areas. Why they don't finally implement doubles
> and put OpenGL out of its misery, I'm not sure.
sorry - won't comment on above - its so damned platformcentric that it
entirely misses whatever point you may have been trying to put over.
>
> Why can MS catch up? Because Open Source people assume their technological
> superiority and rest on their laurels. They think they don't have to market
> because they are technically superior. Also, their ranks are populated with
> strong engineers who don't *like* marketing, as a matter of basic
> personality. They never get it in their heads that they have to
> counter-market to some degree in order to hold the line. If you don't do
> any marketing, Microsoft completely out-markets you and then you die,
> technical merit or not.
>
Assume for a moment that Linux takes off on the desktop (as indications
could be read) - where is your argument?
>
>>>- Sun is about to die. It has done nothing for anyone lately and
>>>has no further tricks up its sleeve.
>>
>>People have been saying this for years. I'll believe it when I see it.
>
>
> Read a paper.
Which ones ? Sun-pro, Sun-Neutral or Sun-contra's?
As another example - Unix has been pronounced dead since the late-80's -
as far as i can see, it seems to live better than ever (in Linux/BSD
etc.) - and that was in all the papers as well...
All the papers have also been stating that MS is dominant on the server
platform (all during the 90's) - slowly the picture is revealed, that
they _never_ had any dominance in this marked - and that they are at the
moment even failing to hold on to the marked they have....
> You got it! And development stops when a langauge loses all meaningful
> mindshare. What is the battle of mindshare? A marketing battle. It is not
> a technological battle, except in the grossest terms of complete
> incompetence. Time and again, the marketplace has proven that kludgy but
> well marketed products carry the day. They only fail when they absolutely
> can't do the job.
Again Fortran is very much alive - Cobol, Lisp and loads others are also
very much alive - and when is the last time you've seen marketing for those?
>
>>If that hapens it will be because something *significantly* better came
>
> along.
>
> No, it is not an engineering meritocracy. Look at a company like DEC.
> Wonderful technology company. Couldn't market its way out of a paper bag.
> That's a warning for this c.l.p crowd. Don't sit around congratulating
> yourselves on how superior your techology is. Recognize the strategic
> competition and market against it
You seem to have failed in the understanding of the OpenSource movement
... Read up on the *why's* of its success - and you will find that it
has naught to do with marketing.
>
>>Historically
>>those with the best technology and the best economic system prevail
>>against inefficient and inferior models.
>
>
> You have *got* to be kidding me. Intel??!? Windows??!?
>
intel => economics made it win
windows => intel economics made it win (in the 90's)
--
Med Venlig Hilsen / Regards
Kim Petersen - Kyborg A/S (Udvikling)
IT - Innovationshuset
Havneparken 2
7100 Vejle
Tlf. +4576408183 || Fax. +4576408188
Paul Boddie
> I'm going to make a number of points which I'm sure many people will object
> to.
I'll resist the temptation to refer to your other threads, then. (Or
other postings in this thread, in fact.)
[...]
> - in 5 years, nobody will be doing significant amounts of new application
> development in C++. The writing is on the wall: garbage collection is
> essential. Any C++ code will be support and legacy libraries.
Well, it should be a surprise that in the "business systems" area
people are still writing huge quantities of C++ code, especially since
a lot of the innovation is now done in other languages. Apart from
your favourite Seattle-based company, who else is seriously bothering
with C++ for Web services, for example? Or at least, who else worth
speaking of? As far as I'm concerned, it was a surprise five years ago
that people didn't automatically consider other languages before C++
for systems of this kind.
It's clear that C and C++ do, however, fit the bill as the languages
most likely to be used to implement systems where high performance is
crucial. In many areas where those languages are used, developers seem
to be fairly conservative, and whilst other languages could offer
noticeable benefits during development and even offer comparable
performance, bandwagon chasing isn't a priority for these people. The
Solaris kernel isn't now implemented in Java as far as I'm aware, for
example.
Of course, you could be referring to the promising situation of Python
running directly on the metal. ;-)
> - Microsoft is already implementing said strategy across all levels of the
> company today. Microsoft developers don't do much C++ development anymore.
> Various upcoming products are being written entirely in C#.
This doesn't interest me, and if it did, I could easily find out for
myself whether this is really true or just speculation. :-)
> - The "higher level language" playing field is crowded: C#, Java, Perl, and
> Python. Mainstream industry does not need and will not make room for 4
> higher level languages. Any of these languages has to grow at some other
> language's expense.
Mainstream industry, whoever that is, already entertains more than
four higher level languages. Note also that Python and Perl are both
at an even higher level than C# and Java, so that observation has
potentially been debunked if you consider those languages' areas of
operation to be complementary.
> - Python will never displace C# on Windows. It's Microsoft's home turf and
> you can't fight directly with The Beast. You will see UNIX boxes running
> Python, not Windows boxes.
This depends on whether Microsoft remove all their "legacy" APIs and
insist that everything runs on the common language runtime (CLR, or
whatever it's called). I doubt that this will happen soon, and you
ignore the possibility that one of these days someone will get Python
running natively and efficiently on the CLR.
> - Sun is about to die. It has done nothing for anyone lately and has no
> further tricks up its sleeve.
About to? They made a pile of cash in the dot-com years and could
presumably sit and burn that off if it weren't for those shareholders.
Personally, I believe that they will either be marginalised or adapt
like IBM and HP have done.
> - Sun has failed to make Java live up to its claims of universality. Java
> is for all intents and purposes simply a widespread programming language,
> not a portable computing environment. Portable computing environments are,
> in general, a pipe dream as long as Microsoft is around. It will always be
> Windows vs. open standards.
This is where your signature comes in, I think. In your 20% of
"real-world" experience, presumably around graphics stuff, Java hasn't
really been as successful as hyped, although the latest mobile 'phone
craze for Java gaming might at least change that slightly. Meanwhile,
in various parts of the 80% that you don't have experience of, Java
has been pretty successful precisely because it offers a portable
environment, albeit one that can be pretty infuriating at times. Hint:
Python complements Java when Java gets too infuriating.
> - Java is proprietary. Python is open source. Open Source is the best shot
> that anyone has at competing with Windows.
This will be demonstrated over time, yes.
> - Perl is open source and sysadmins won't be giving it up any time soon.
> Perl is optimal for their jobs, the capabilities of Python are a non-sell.
I don't agree. People do use tools which they know about and can be
hostile to those that they don't have time to learn. Education is the
principal issue here, and that education won't be readily accepted as
white papers written by suits.
> - Ergo, Java is the weakling of the litter for Python to attack.
Again, Python and Java can operate in different areas, interoperate,
and coexist in the same area as tools which offer certain advantages
at certain points in time.
> - Alternately, if you look at this in real world marketing terms, Python is
> the weakling of the litter that must defend itself. I know that will make
> various Python idealists upset, but that's the economic reality. Merit
> doesn't win in this game. Java is the next weakest langauge so that's whose
> lunch Python should try to eat.
I think you should stop trying to think of all this as an
intellectually lightweight corporate strategy meeting where we have to
agree on some kind of marketing campaign that actually does nothing
more than prop up the advertising profession whilst making complete
fools out of everyone involved.
What does stop Python from being recognised and adopted is the lack of
awareness that people have, and it is true that part of this lack of
awareness is down to a lack of brochures arriving on the desks of
salespeople and strategists. Nevertheless, demonstrated successful
systems have a more powerful impact on those whose money is ultimately
being spent on new software - the customers. Because as their
competitors demonstrate working systems that give them productivity
benefits, they can turn to vendors and say, "Stop trying to sell us
buzzword X - just give us something like our competitors are using!"
The more I think about it, the more I realise that many customers
probably don't care whether you've used the latest stuff from
Microsoft or not (although they might be a bit concerned about the
licensing schemes), and the more I realise that it must be the various
bandwagons that "inform" certain parts of the "decision chain" that
create this downward pressure on people to write all their stuff in C#
or <insert flavour of the month>. As the balance of power shifts away
from the vendor to the customer, however, I think you'll start to see
the smart vendors adapt and start to discover what actually works,
both from their customers and the people on the ground actually doing
the work, and they'll cut out the brochure trail as they realise that
it doesn't really help them to make money and satisfy customers at the
same time.
Paul
P.S. If you're really interested, there's a marketing/promotion
interest group for Python. The details are out there on the Web, so if
it's important to you, I'm sure you can dig them out.
John J. Lee
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
[...]
> As far as i've read up on .NET/C# - the language doesn't matter -
> whats to stop ppl continuing the programming language they've always
> used?
[...]
The design of the CLR. Implementing Python on the CLR isn't feasible.
John
Y2KYZFR1
> Microsoft developers don't do much C++ development anymore.
this comes from someone who says they have avoided C++ their entire
career. qualified opinon if I every heard one!
Brandon J. Van Every
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:54:12 -0700, "Brandon J. Van Every"
> <vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote:
>
>> Doug Tolton wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:43:08 -0700, "Brandon J. Van Every"
>>>>
>>>> - in 5 years, nobody will be doing significant amounts of new
>>>> application development in C++. The writing is on the wall:
>>>> garbage collection is essential. Any C++ code will be support and
>>>> legacy libraries.
>>>
>>> That's a ridiculous blanket statement. People will be doing C++
>>> development for a long time beyond that. There are people still
>>> writing Cobol for crying out loud.
>>
>> Do you honestly believe that people are doing a significant amount
>> of new application development in Cobol, as opposed to maintenance
>> work?
>
> Apparently MS does, they were promoting Cobol.net pretty heavily not
> too long ago.
That's a migration strategy, not new application development.
> How are they going to crush Mozilla, Chimera or Khtml? You keep
> touting Mindshare. Whose mindshare is growing MS or Open Source? If
> you can't answer that honestly then you really are trolling.
The only people who care about those are open source hackers. The
mainstream doesn't even know what they are.
>>> That's a bold statement, considering the abysmal adoption rate of
>>> C#.
>>
>> Within Microsoft, the adoption of C# is universal. That tends to
>> have a powerful effect on ISV Windows development over time.
>
> Really, who cares what MS does?
I see. So when confronted with data that contradicts your Python world
view, you change from "that's not true" to "who cares?" Contemplate it
later, when you've gotten over your first moments of denial.
> How does MS using C# affect Python?
> You have yet to establish any kind of Causal connection.
>
> Here it is straight, Python has been around going strong for over 10
> years now, inspite of lack of a corporate pimp. Why is that?
Because Python has been a niche. If you are content to stay in a niche,
fine. In that sense Python will always survive. Lisp is similarly used by
academics, hobbyists, and cranks. If you want to grow out of the niche,
achieve mainstream industry relevance, and maintain it, then you're going to
have to market yourself against the likes of C# and Java. Engineering merit
does *not* win as you attempt to scale up.
> I could be wrong but I didn't think OpenGL was open source. If it
> isn't, your argument isn't really a good point then.
It's an open standard, not open source. That said, I'm pretty sure the
OpenGL Sample Implementation is now open source. And the Mesa workalike is
definitely open source, although I don't know why anyone cares about SW
rendering anymore.
>> Why can MS catch up? Because Open Source people assume their
>> technological superiority and rest on their laurels. They think
>> they don't have to market because they are technically superior.
>> Also, their ranks are populated with strong engineers who don't
>> *like* marketing, as a matter of basic personality. They never get
>> it in their heads that they have to counter-market to some degree in
>> order to hold the line. If you don't do any marketing, Microsoft
>> completely out-markets you and then you die, technical merit or not.
>
> Hmm...interesting point. Too bad there is simply no factual basis for
> it. If Microsoft completely out markets everyone and they die, why
> are there still so many Unix machines around? The only thing that has
> made any headway against the Unix establishment is Linux.
Linux *is* marketed, unlike Python. Meditate on that, Grasshopper.
Brandon J. Van Every
>
> I think you should stop trying to think of all this as an
> intellectually lightweight corporate strategy meeting where we have to
> agree on some kind of marketing campaign that actually does nothing
> more than prop up the advertising profession whilst making complete
> fools out of everyone involved.
It's actually not my thinking. I really think all the technocrats around
here are the marketing lightweights. I have a very clear picture of what
makes it down the corporate value chain, which is why I'm highlighting your
post:
> What does stop Python from being recognised and adopted is the lack of
> awareness that people have, and it is true that part of this lack of
> awareness is down to a lack of brochures arriving on the desks of
> salespeople and strategists. Nevertheless, demonstrated successful
> systems have a more powerful impact on those whose money is ultimately
> being spent on new software - the customers. Because as their
> competitors demonstrate working systems that give them productivity
> benefits, they can turn to vendors and say, "Stop trying to sell us
> buzzword X - just give us something like our competitors are using!"
>
> The more I think about it, the more I realise that many customers
> probably don't care whether you've used the latest stuff from
> Microsoft or not (although they might be a bit concerned about the
> licensing schemes), and the more I realise that it must be the various
> bandwagons that "inform" certain parts of the "decision chain" that
> create this downward pressure on people to write all their stuff in C#
> or <insert flavour of the month>.
With you so far.
> As the balance of power shifts away
> from the vendor to the customer, however, I think you'll start to see
> the smart vendors adapt and start to discover what actually works,
> both from their customers and the people on the ground actually doing
> the work, and they'll cut out the brochure trail as they realise that
> it doesn't really help them to make money and satisfy customers at the
> same time.
Not in the absence of marketing. Keep in mind, Linux is marketed.
> P.S. If you're really interested, there's a marketing/promotion
> interest group for Python. The details are out there on the Web, so if
> it's important to you, I'm sure you can dig them out.
Actually, I would be interested in their opinions of the Python community,
if they're willing to give them. And maybe they'd be interested in an
outsider's perception of the Python community. It is, after all, people
like me that have to be sold in order to grow the market.
David Eppstein
"Brandon J. Van Every" <vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote:
> I see. So when confronted with data that contradicts your Python world
> view, you change from "that's not true" to "who cares?" Contemplate it
> later, when you've gotten over your first moments of denial.
Ok. I agree with everyone else who's already said it. He's a troll.
--
David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
Cliff Wells
> I am being educated here. Is that what trolls do? :-)
Only if you're interested in social engineering.
--
Cliff Wells, Software Engineer
Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net)
(503) 978-6726 (800) 735-0555
Michael Geary
> > I am being educated here. Is that what trolls do? :-)
Cliff Wells wrote:
> Only if you're interested in social engineering.
After reading more of this thread, I see your point. My educational
experience was short-lived. :-)
-Mike
Christopher Blunck
> - Sun is about to die. It has done nothing for anyone lately and has no
> further tricks up its sleeve.
Sun will be acquired but will not die.
> - Sun has failed to make Java live up to its claims of universality. Java
> is for all intents and purposes simply a widespread programming language,
> not a portable computing environment. Portable computing environments are,
> in general, a pipe dream as long as Microsoft is around. It will always be
> Windows vs. open standards.
Disagreed. Sun has done a great job for universality by promoting job
mobility. For example, a couple of years ago, I as a WebSphere developer
could not obtain a position on a project using WebLogic or iPlanet. But
now with the "J2EE Standards for Packaging", deployment is universal. As
long as I understand the spec, I'm mobile across environments. That
unifies the job market for J2EE developers, and creates a situation
whereby an employer has many *many* more potential workers to draw upon.
That in and of itself makes Java a viable strategic platform.
To prove my point, I'll extend my argument to database access. Awhile
back, there were thick and thin database drivers. The thick drivers were
native and proprietary, but were gleefully fast. As JDBC caught on and
became more robust, more and more vendors switched to thin clients that
implemented the JDBC spec. When this happened, Java developers stopped
writing to the proprietary thick client interfaces and instead adopted
JDBC. All of the sudden they became more mobile - they could now work for
another company using a different database vendor because they were
familiar with coding at the interface (or specification) level.
Sun has done a fabulous job of defining a specification, and providing an
reference implementation. The suite of XML parsers is a perfect example.
JAXP, JAXM, JAXB, etc etc etc are specs that a programmer familiarizes
themselves with by using the underlying implementations of Xerces, Dom4J,
Axis, etc. But, because they code to a specification they are mobile.
So, can you take a piece of bytecode off a Windows platform and run it on
a Solaris platform? Most of the time yes. In some odd occasions you
cannot. Big whoop. But, the other benefits that Sun has provided via
Java far outweigh the downsides imo.
> - Java is proprietary. Python is open source. Open Source is the best shot
> that anyone has at competing with Windows.
Why compete with Windows? What do you hope to gain other than personal
satisfaction?
> - Ergo, Java is the weakling of the litter for Python to attack.
Don't attack Java. Please don't.
Python has it's place (I actually prefer to code Python over Java), but
don't turn it into what it's not - a martyr. Let Python evolve as it
will. It solves a *huge* amounts of problems in a pragmatic fashion that
other languages don't come close to. Be happy that Python does that. Do
you really want to have a "Python One" conference costing $2000 that is
filled with mostly mid level manager donkeys handing out their business
cards and giving away plush animals? I don't.
...
In my opinion, where Python excels over Java is in it's usability. This
goes back to the statement (was it Kevin? or Skip?): "batteries
included." Python's built-in types are top shelf and extremely easy to
manipulate and use. Capitalize on those benefits. Show coworkers how
they can gain efficiencies by exploiting the built-in capabilities of
python. Lead by example, not by commanding an army of cavalry. Python
has always been a grass roots effort (which may be why it is so
technically successful).
You're not going to achieve the same level of penetration that C# and Java
have achieved - Sun and MS have thousands of marketing and salespeople
working around the clock at booking Java and C# as the "enterprise
development platforms". Instead of fighting the beast head, subvert from
within (to quote Dana Moore from last year's PyCon). Show people where
Python excels in areas that their Java or C# environments cannot touch.
Make a MS wizard obey the commands of a Java applet by using Jython and
CPython. Show people that you can implement 90% of a feature in 3 days,
and offer to gut it in 6 months when the Java or C# alternative rolls out.
Make a subtle joke about your coworkers giving you $100 to hold onto until
such time that they replace your Python implementation with a Java or C#
impelmentation. That'll get them thinking.
In Summary -
Java provides benefits. Java has weaknesses tho. Don't go head to head
with Java or C# - you'll lose. Instead, make use of the grass roots
history of Python and lead by example.
Best of luck Brandon - good post!!! :)
-c
Ben Finney
> Best of luck Brandon - good post!!! :)
Seconded. Though others argue the motivation behind Brandon making the
post, I found it to be quite thought-provoking and worth discussing on
its merits. (As it happens, I didn't, because others already have done
better in this thread.)
--
\ "The man who is denied the opportunity of taking decisions of |
`\ importance begins to regard as important the decisions he is |
_o__) allowed to take." -- C. Northcote Parkinson |
Ben Finney <http://bignose.squidly.org/>
Anand Pillai
Anand
"Brandon J. Van Every" <vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message news:<bha9ee$vthc2$1...@ID-203719.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Paul Boddie
>
[The shift of the balance of power from vendor to customer leads to a
shift in technologies employed.]
> Not in the absence of marketing. Keep in mind, Linux is marketed.
Well, on the client side people may ask for Windows solutions or Linux
solutions, but I doubt that so many customers specifically stipulate
Windows, UNIX or Linux for reasons other than convenience of
maintenance and consistency with the rest of their environment. And
way before Linux was marketed, it was getting through the door because
motivated individuals realised that it could do the job more
conveniently, for less money, and with less hassle.
> > P.S. If you're really interested, there's a marketing/promotion
> > interest group for Python. The details are out there on the Web, so if
> > it's important to you, I'm sure you can dig them out.
>
> Actually, I would be interested in their opinions of the Python community,
> if they're willing to give them. And maybe they'd be interested in an
> outsider's perception of the Python community. It is, after all, people
> like me that have to be sold in order to grow the market.
The way I've seen people convinced is this: you demonstrate some small
solution which does the job; then you tell them that it's written in
Python. If that isn't suddenly a part of a mission-critical system,
they frequently mention how they'd always considered looking at Python
but hadn't done so yet: "Perhaps I should start to learn Python," they
usually say. Most of the time, you demonstrate things that are very
simple in Python but would be a pain with C, C++ or Java, and you let
people realise that they can either spend days hacking on such
problems in the languages they know, or they can learn to work more
effectively. Personally, I made that transition about seven years ago,
and it is a surprise that many people still haven't realised that such
a transition can be made relatively easily.
Of course, you can get hostility, but that's usually down to the fact
that people feel threatened by things they don't know and fear they
won't understand. For them, they feel that it's better to stick to
what they know and be more productive than their peers in that
environment than to make the transition, be more productive than they
were before, but not be seen as an expert by their peers any more.
On the other side of the coin are the people who occasionally post to
comp.lang.python who ask, "Why should I learn Python?" This isn't
restricted to programming languages, either, but it's sound advice to
tell such people that if they know what the benefits of Python are and
how they apply to their situation, then they don't need to be asking
those kinds of questions - they already know the answer and just get
on with it. Otherwise, it isn't interesting to entertain their
questions because their motivation can usually be summarised as, "Am I
too sexy for Python?"
Anyway, raising the awareness of Python probably is a good thing. Big
bucks marketing and developer coercion will, on the other hand, just
alienate the talented and motivated developers. As I said before,
Python's strengths lie in the demonstrated productivity benefits it
offers, and this kind of message will increasingly drown out
superficial product endorsement as the nature of the industry changes.
Paul
Bruno Desthuilliers
(snip)
> Java and Python are really
> entirely different things. Python is meant as a scripting language,
> Java is a Systems programming language.
Err... Is this another troll ? Or is it me being just dumb ?
I'd like to see some 'System programming' (I think we don't give 'system
programming' the same meaning) in Java, that can't be done in Python.
(snip the rest)
Bruno
John Roth
"Brandon J. Van Every" <vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message
> I'm going to make a number of points which I'm sure many people will
object
> to. Feel free, but also try not to knee-jerk about them. As someone who
> programmed DEC Alpha in 1998, and who sees the sorry state of CPUs
nowadays,
> I can definitely say that better technology doesn't always win. In fact,
it
> doesn't *usually* win. Python needs to look to its strategic marketing
and
> product positioning if it expects to survive in the rough and tumble world
> of mainstream industry.
>
> Points to note:
>
> - in 5 years, nobody will be doing significant amounts of new application
> development in C++. The writing is on the wall: garbage collection is
> essential. Any C++ code will be support and legacy libraries.
Well, I tend to agree that people are slowly oozing that way. I think that
5 years is a bit to enthusiastic a prediction, though. What will happen is
that C++ will gradually lose market share to other languages.
> - Microsoft is already implementing said strategy across all levels of the
> company today. Microsoft developers don't do much C++ development
anymore.
> Various upcoming products are being written entirely in C#.
Again, this is an overstatement. New products are being written in
C#, older products are staying in C++, and some core operating system
products likewise. I have a huge vision of the Windows kernel being
written in C#, for example.
> - The "higher level language" playing field is crowded: C#, Java, Perl,
and
> Python. Mainstream industry does not need and will not make room for 4
> higher level languages. Any of these languages has to grow at some other
> language's expense.
You missed Ruby and TCL. Granted, TCL is probably only being held up
by TK and Expect, though. Ruby is the one that's gaining fastest, and it has
a number of interesting features that Guido would do well to think about.
Perl, on the other hand, has this Perl 6 effort going on; in a couple of
years
its going to be a completely new language.
> - Python will never displace C# on Windows. It's Microsoft's home turf
and
> you can't fight directly with The Beast. You will see UNIX boxes running
> Python, not Windows boxes.
Duh.
> - Sun is about to die. It has done nothing for anyone lately and has no
> further tricks up its sleeve.
Don't count the chickens until the fat lady sings.
> - Sun has failed to make Java live up to its claims of universality. Java
> is for all intents and purposes simply a widespread programming language,
> not a portable computing environment. Portable computing environments
are,
> in general, a pipe dream as long as Microsoft is around. It will always
be
> Windows vs. open standards.
You're contradicting yourself. Python cannot be portable because Microsoft
is around?
> - Java is proprietary. Python is open source. Open Source is the best
shot
> that anyone has at competing with Windows.
Duh? Again, the fat lady isn't even gargling in the wings on that one.
> - Perl is open source and sysadmins won't be giving it up any time soon.
> Perl is optimal for their jobs, the capabilities of Python are a non-sell.
>
> - Ergo, Java is the weakling of the litter for Python to attack.
>
> - Alternately, if you look at this in real world marketing terms, Python
is
> the weakling of the litter that must defend itself. I know that will make
> various Python idealists upset, but that's the economic reality. Merit
> doesn't win in this game. Java is the next weakest langauge so that's
whose
> lunch Python should try to eat.
You forgot Ruby and TCL again.
> - No, this isn't the appraisal of a Microsoftie who wants to set Python
and
> Java at each others' throats to conquer both. :-) I'm just offering a
> realistic picture of what your options are, if you don't want to become a
> "gee whiz, wasn't that nice!" technology. Like I said, I've lived through
> it already. Don't talk to me about merit carrying the day. Learn from
> history, or you are doomed to repeat it.
There is a major divide between the statically typed languages and the
dynamically typed languages. To sell Python, you need to make two
points:
1. Static typing does not do the job that its proponents claim for it
well enough to be worth the extra development time it imposes, and
2. Python is better for serious systems development than Perl,
Ruby, TCL, etc.
There are a number of people saying item 1, some rather
vociferously, but there is a noticable lack of hard data on the
issue. Regardless of the data, the arguement applies to C++,
Java and C# equally: they all have the same fundamental
approach to static typing.
On number 2, I don't think there's any question about Python's
general superiority to Perl and TCL for serious, large scale
development work. Ruby, on the other hand, is a completely
different question.
So the basic conclusion is that Ruby is the enemy to be
taken on, not Java.
John Roth
Roy Smith
> You missed Ruby and TCL. Granted, TCL is probably only being held up
> by TK and Expect, though.
Don't kid yourself. I work on a commercial application which includes
almost 20,000 lines of TCL, and not a single line of it is Tk or Expect.
As an embedded scripting language, it fills a very nice niche.
This particular collection of TCL code is the 3rd generation of
scripting code for this application. The first generation was a huge
shell script, which was quickly outgrown. The second generation was a
home-brew language which was a complete failure. The third generation
was embedding TCL, which was a roaring success.
I've been known to mutter "TCL is a stupid language" more than a few
times (typically during code reviews), but it does have a few things
going for it. It's dead simple to learn, reasonably powerful, and it's
trivial to imbed (simplier than Python).
Still, for all that, I suspect it's a bit of an evolutionary dead end.
John Roth
"Roy Smith" <r...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:roy-E4E108.2...@reader1.panix.com...
I agree. There's a huge amount of intertia since, for many applications,
there isn't a whole lot of difference between the four major scripting
languages.
John Roth
Michele Simionato
> ... Ruby is the one that's gaining fastest, and it has
> a number of interesting features that Guido would do well to think about.
Out of curiosity, which features are you referring to?
Michele
John Roth
"Michele Simionato" <mi...@pitt.edu> wrote in message
news:2259b0e2.0308...@posting.google.com...
There's another thread started today where several of us have
posted lists (among a whole lot of idiotic flaming, unfortunately.)
Ruby solves a number of long-standing problems (and adds a number
of it's own, of course - nothing's perfect.)
John Roth
>
>
> Michele
Mike Margerum
Seems to be working really well there and thats where the growth is.
Why do you think Sun is putting so much effort into J2ME?
John J. Lee
Good point.
Out of curiosity, much much memory / how fast are these devices?
More interestingly, how long will it take for Moore's law to make C++
more expensive overall than Python? Not long, I suspect.
John
Doug Tolton
No that is not a troll. I think Java is better at building some large
systems than Python is. That's what it was designed for, python was
designed to be a scalable scripting language. Python wasn't designed
to be a replacement for C++ to my knowledge. Are you saying that
python was designed to be a replacement for C / C++ for building large
scale systems? If so I'm suffering under a mis-apprehension of what
Python is all about.
I'm using System in the generic sense rather than the specific sense
of Operating System.
It isn't a matter of whether it can be done in Python. You can write
anything in assembly for that matter, the reason you don't is
typically productivity. That doesn't mean you shouldn't write
anything in Assembly does it?
I don't know how stating the obvious 'that some languages are better
at some tasks than other languages' would be considered a troll.
Doug Tolton
(format t "~a@~a~a.~a" "dtolton" "ya" "hoo" "com")
Alex Martelli
...
> designed to be a scalable scripting language. Python wasn't designed
> to be a replacement for C++ to my knowledge. Are you saying that
> python was designed to be a replacement for C / C++ for building large
> scale systems? If so I'm suffering under a mis-apprehension of what
> Python is all about.
Even though Python was NOT specifically designed for "building large
scale [software] systems" when it was born over 12 years ago, it does
"happen" to be excellent for the job. Not just my opinion -- e.g.,
Mitch Kapor and his OSAF chose Python as the application-programming
language for the Chandler system, and if you look at the specs for
that ambitious undertaking you'll see it WILL be quite a large-scale
system when it matures.
Of course, part of what helps is that Python is substantially
higher-level than the other languages you're considering (most
particularly C): given a system's total functionality, measured
say in "Function Points", you can rely on the system SIZE (in
terms, say, of lines of code) being VERY substantially smaller
when you program it in Python.
C and C++, rather than being "replaced", are "re=positioned" at
doing what they're best at -- making libraries of stuff that must
run fast and in very memory-lean ways. Python is ideal to build
applications, and systems, out of those "raw materials" (as well,
very often, at prototyping the libraries themselves).
> I'm using System in the generic sense rather than the specific sense
> of Operating System.
Yep, same here. Although in the expression "system programming"
it IS more often than not an _Operating_ system that is meant.
> It isn't a matter of whether it can be done in Python. You can write
> anything in assembly for that matter, the reason you don't is
> typically productivity. That doesn't mean you shouldn't write
> anything in Assembly does it?
Of course! Kapor and friends didn't choose Python because "it could
be done that way"; their purpose is making Chandler a great product,
and their motivation for choosing Python is that they believe it will
let them pursue that purpose with maximum productivity. I happen
to agree with them (and, just like them, I come from long experience
with other languages such as C, C++, and Java).
> I don't know how stating the obvious 'that some languages are better
> at some tasks than other languages' would be considered a troll.
With such genericity, it could hardly offend anybody (and it would
be just as unlikely for the super-generic assertion to prove USEFUL
to anybody, of course:-). But as soon as you get down to specifics,
it gets more interesting (in all senses of the word "interesting":-).
Why Java's inability to treat classes, functions etc as first-class
objects, or the copious and tedious boilerplate it requires, should
make it better than Python at putting together very large applications
and systems of applications, for example, is anything but obvious (to
me, at least). Say, for example, that one believes Java's strength
is not the language itself, but the huge collection of libraries and
frameworks; then, since once can access those same libraries and
frameworks with the Jython implementation of Python, one might still
perfectly sensibly believe that the best way to put together large
applications and systems out of those wonderful libraries & frameworks
is still Python (just like it is when the libraries &c are in C/C++).
Until and unless somebody tries to build the SAME large application
several times with different languages (unlikely!), it will be hard
to get reliable data. I do remember from the recent past, just as I
was stepping out of the CAD / PDM world, that one of our competitors'
marketing was making hay from the fact that they had entirely
rewritten their major system, from Java to C++, with untold benefits
in speed, memory consumption, and the like. Of course, _our OWN_
marketing quietly replied that OUR systems had always been in C++
and the fact that we'd never pursued the (by our competitors' own
admission) blind alley of Java had just given us that many more
cycles to spend in solving our customers' problems, etc etc.
BTW: even though I left that CAD / PDM firm mostly because I was unable
to evangelize Python effectively there, I do find it amusing that
there's now LOTS of Python code in their systems -- apparently, my
evangelism HAD been effective at grass-roots levels, just not with
top management; and the techies had stealthily deployed growing amounts
of Python, e.g. in alleged "prototypes"... that had then been shipped:-).
Not complaining -- it does mean I get occasionally called in as a
Python consultant, which is a welcome opportunity to greet old friends
as well as a source of income;-). But note that the firm does NOT
advertise the role of Python in their systems: "all rock-solid C++"
is the message marketing wants to keep sending (basically in a fight
with those competitors who switched to Java, whether they later
switched back to C++ or not) -- inserting the unknown-to-customers
"Python" term in the equation would dilute the message. Pity, but I'm
convinced there's a LOT of that going on in the software world...!-)
Alex
A.M. Kuchling
Alex Martelli <al...@aleax.it> wrote:
> "happen" to be excellent for the job. Not just my opinion -- e.g.,
> Mitch Kapor and his OSAF chose Python as the application-programming
> language for the Chandler system, and if you look at the specs for
> that ambitious undertaking you'll see it WILL be quite a large-scale
> system when it matures.
I don't find OSAF's choice of Python to be much of an endorsement.
Given that most of the principals involved didn't seem to actually
know Python at the time of the initial announcement, I can only
conclude that they thought choosing Python would give them some
credibility in the open-source community, and not because they did a
careful comparison of Python with the alternatives.
--amk
Andrew Dalke
Doug
> > I'm using System in the generic sense rather than the specific sense
> > of Operating System.
Alex:
> Yep, same here. Although in the expression "system programming"
> it IS more often than not an _Operating_ system that is meant.
The original article I know of which tried to pin down the differences
between the two approaches, at least in the context of modern
languages, is Ousterhout's essay at
http://home.pacbell.net/ouster/scripting.html
By its definitions, Python is a system language:
Scripting languages aren't intended for writing applications from
scratch; they are intended primarily for plugging together components.
scripting languages tend to be typeless: all things look and behave the
same so that they are interchangeable.
Scripting languages are often string-oriented, since this provides a
uniform representation for many different things.
Another key difference between scripting languages and system
programming languages is that scripting languages are usually
interpreted whereas system programming languages are usually compiled.
(Python is byte compiled on the fly, but so is Tcl. And most Java
implementations.)
Scripting languages represent a different set of tradeoffs than system
programming languages. They give up execution speed and strength
of typing relative to system programming languages but provide
significantly higher programmer productivity and software reuse.
I no longer see his essay as interesting. I bring it up to point out
the scripting vs. system language debate is based on nebulous grounds
because there are many, many divergent interpretations of what those
two terms mean.
Alex:
> as well as a source of income;-). But note that the firm does NOT
> advertise the role of Python in their systems: "all rock-solid C++"
> is the message marketing wants to keep sending
What's wrong with that? It's just using a C library. ;)
Andrew
da...@dalkescientific.com
Alex Martelli
I think you're doing them an injustice. After all, enough open-source
work (by far!) is done in (e.g.) C, or Java, or C++, that choosing any
of these languages, say, would most obviously not have in any way damaged
their "credibility in the open-source community"! Sure, by choosing
Python they have gained (e.g.) my personal sympathy, but by the same
token by choosing (e.g.) Perl they might have gained the sympathy of the
much-vaster hordes of Perl fans, no?
It WOULD be interesting to hear from the OSAF guys exactly why they
chose Python, what other alternatives they compared it to, and what
criteria they weighed by how much. But clearly, one way or another,
they DID form the opinion that Python will be suitable to build the
ambitious, large-scale system they aspire to -- so, the fact that
"Python is excellent for this job" is NOT just my opinion is amply
confirmed... whether Kapor & friends made their choice by listening
to the opinions of others (Raymond, Berners-Lee, Eckel, whoever) or
(as they appear to claim on their pages) by doing their own
comparisons of the available alternatives.
Alex
Tim Rowe
wrote:
>Doug Tolton wrote:
[snip]
>> I don't know how stating the obvious 'that some languages are better
>> at some tasks than other languages' would be considered a troll.
>
>With such genericity, it could hardly offend anybody (and it would
>be just as unlikely for the super-generic assertion to prove USEFUL
>to anybody, of course:-).
Though I have upset a few people hereabouts in the past by suggesting
that the statement could apply to Python :-)