On 27 May 2010 16:56, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote: > We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. Plenty of evidence has > been provided; it just doesn't happen to apply to you. Fine, but I > wish you'd make the "to me" part explicit, because I know that it does > apply to others, many of them, from their personal testimony, both > related to XEmacs and to Python. Sorry, you're right. There's a very strong "to me" in all of this, but I more or less assumed it was obvious, as I was originally responding to comments implying that a sumo distribution was a solution to a problem I stated that I have. In trying to trim things, and keep things concise, I completely lost the context. My apologies. > I wouldn't recommend building a production system on top of a sumo in > any case. But (given resources to maintain multiple Python development > installations) it is a good environment for experimentation, because > not only batteries but screwdrivers and duct tape are supplied. That's an interesting perspective that I hadn't seen mentioned before. For experimentation, I'd *love* a sumo distribution as you describe. But I thought this whole discussion focussed around building production systems. For that, the stdlib's quality guarantees are a major benefit, and the costs of locating and validating appropriately high-quality external packages are (sometimes prohibitively) high. But I think I'm getting to the point where I'm adding more confusion than information, so I'll bow out of this discussion at this point. Paul.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4