2 ms·

This is a sincere question and I have no idea what you mean by 'treated like children with half-baked "integrations"'? The intended context of the question, wh

This is a sincere question and I have no idea what you mean by 'treated like children with half-baked "integrations"'? The intended context of the question, which admittedly could be more clear-- is for a data product that could be used for any data. Take Cockroach DB for example, which already has python integration ( https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/sample-app-python-and-cockroachdb/ https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/sample-app-python-and-coc... ) With platforms like DataBricks and Airflow that are heavily inclined towards python, it feels somewhat unavoidable to need to offer a way to access the product via "import" in python. So the question is: in that scenario, could a commercial product still survive-- or even thrive-- without doing so?

PaulHoule 4y ago
For me the use of the word "integration" is a bad smell. All too often I've seen it used in cases where people have tried to substitute 15 hours of talking to sales people for 15 minutes of Python coding for 15. That is, connecting to an API is one of the easiest things in computing but when people starting talking about "integration" they are making it one of the hardest. If your product is a database (I make a query, you return results) then I think many users are going to want Python bindings to the database. If this product is going to "thrive" people are going to need some way to connect with it. What alternative to using Python to do you imagine somebody wants?
- mattewong 4y ago
  OK thanks, I get that now. I suppose there could be at least two alternatives: 1. use "un-integrated" python code e.g. run a subprocess independently that just runs an external binary / shared lib / etc 2. avoid solutions that do not require a python environment entirely, or, use them in a less-commonly-employed manner that would not run the product through python (e.g. Airflow bash operator) Both of the above seem perfectly reasonable to me, but I'm not sure whether others would agree.

PaulHoule 4y ago

For me the use of the word "integration" is a bad smell. All too often I've seen it used in cases where people have tried to substitute 15 hours of talking to sales people for 15 minutes of Python coding for 15. That is, connecting to an API is one of the easiest things in computing but when people starting talking about "integration" they are making it one of the hardest. If your product is a database (I make a query, you return results) then I think many users are going to want Python bindings to the database. If this product is going to "thrive" people are going to need some way to connect with it. What alternative to using Python to do you imagine somebody wants?

mattewong 4y ago
OK thanks, I get that now. I suppose there could be at least two alternatives: 1. use "un-integrated" python code e.g. run a subprocess independently that just runs an external binary / shared lib / etc 2. avoid solutions that do not require a python environment entirely, or, use them in a less-commonly-employed manner that would not run the product through python (e.g. Airflow bash operator) Both of the above seem perfectly reasonable to me, but I'm not sure whether others would agree.