5 ms·

I kind of agree with both of your points regarding python. It is easy to set up for technologically literate people. But just using a web browser is orders of m

by chm 10y ago

I kind of agree with both of your points regarding python. It is easy to set up for technologically literate people. But just using a web browser is orders of magnitude simpler for the majority. But really they're two different beasts and I don't think it's fair to compare python with a web browser in terms of "ease of set up".

bobwaycott 10y ago
Simpler for which majority? Aren't we talking about developers here, not the technically illiterate? Learning 1 single (and relatively simple) language vs HTML/CSS for presentation (and all its headaches) and JS for logic/interaction? The browser is a stack, not a single piece of tech.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  All developers start as technical illiterates. Most projects don't need python to be successful.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    Who said anything about projects needing Python to be successful?
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      since the discussion is about python vs. HTML/CSS/JS/DOM etc i assumed that's your alternative to what the illiterates use. Feel free to replace is with any other language. The point still stands.
      - bobwaycott 10y ago
        I'm not classifying people who use web stack as illiterates. Where did that idea come from? The discussion is about developers and the tools they use. We aren't talking about those who are technically illiterate. Nor are we talking about certain technologies being responsible for a project's success. And there are very few instances where one could convincingly point to a language as the reason for success. Making such assertions are usually immature at best. I think we must be talking past each other.
        ThomPete 10y ago
        We are talking about choosing a language like Python normally considered a serious language vs. HTML/CSS/JS/DOM (PHP?) which is often considered less serious development frameworks. If you go back and see what I originally responded to, perhaps the context becomes a little clearer.
        bobwaycott 10y ago
        Except that's not the context for this thread at all. What you originally responded to was a comment about the webification of everything, and the lack of MIT-licensed GUI libraries. Several people other than me all responded to your contentions about web-stack being great, easy, conceptually sound, etc. There was nothing in the OP this thread devolved from about Python itself, other than it having a great QT library. And as far as context is concerned, this particular comment trail was a response to the ease of using Python, not anything at all related to it being "serious" compared to web-stack. How are we so far apart regarding what is actually being discussed in context? We can both read the comment thread we each keep replying to. Your context (and points) keeps changing.
        ThomPete 10y ago
        That is exactly the context of this thread. It might not be your context but it is mine and since I started it seems like you are the one who is changing the context.

by chm 10y ago

bobwaycott 10y ago

Simpler for which majority? Aren't we talking about developers here, not the technically illiterate? Learning 1 single (and relatively simple) language vs HTML/CSS for presentation (and all its headaches) and JS for logic/interaction? The browser is a stack, not a single piece of tech.

ThomPete 10y ago
All developers start as technical illiterates. Most projects don't need python to be successful.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  Who said anything about projects needing Python to be successful?
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    since the discussion is about python vs. HTML/CSS/JS/DOM etc i assumed that's your alternative to what the illiterates use. Feel free to replace is with any other language. The point still stands.
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      I'm not classifying people who use web stack as illiterates. Where did that idea come from? The discussion is about developers and the tools they use. We aren't talking about those who are technically illiterate. Nor are we talking about certain technologies being responsible for a project's success. And there are very few instances where one could convincingly point to a language as the reason for success. Making such assertions are usually immature at best. I think we must be talking past each other.
      - ThomPete 10y ago
        We are talking about choosing a language like Python normally considered a serious language vs. HTML/CSS/JS/DOM (PHP?) which is often considered less serious development frameworks. If you go back and see what I originally responded to, perhaps the context becomes a little clearer.
        bobwaycott 10y ago
        Except that's not the context for this thread at all. What you originally responded to was a comment about the webification of everything, and the lack of MIT-licensed GUI libraries. Several people other than me all responded to your contentions about web-stack being great, easy, conceptually sound, etc. There was nothing in the OP this thread devolved from about Python itself, other than it having a great QT library. And as far as context is concerned, this particular comment trail was a response to the ease of using Python, not anything at all related to it being "serious" compared to web-stack. How are we so far apart regarding what is actually being discussed in context? We can both read the comment thread we each keep replying to. Your context (and points) keeps changing.
        ThomPete 10y ago
        That is exactly the context of this thread. It might not be your context but it is mine and since I started it seems like you are the one who is changing the context.