dexterous

7 ms·

1. 31.▲
   by dexterous 10y ago

   Welcome to market fragmentation; the price we pay for... competition, I guess! :P
2. 32.▲
   by dexterous 10y ago

   It's the cost of having beta access, I guess. :)
3. 33.▲
   by dexterous 12y ago

   Actually, I find that it works better of the mundane and boring. Pain reduces by sharing it! :P It's easier to stay on an interesting task, but here a good pair keeps you from going off the rails and totally losing track of the goal.
4. 34.▲
   by dexterous 13y ago

   I'm not denying that IO is important to a certain class of Python programs too; but I still can't see what leads to the conclusion that IO bound programs are the primary use case for Python. There are enough evented and async io l
5. 35.▲
   by dexterous 13y ago

   I don't buy that. I've had enough people relate Python's roots in the sysad tool belt and it's application in processing large data sets to believe that it's intended use case could be that limited.
6. 36.▲
   by dexterous 13y ago

   I'm curious, what leads you to the conclusion that 'Python is typically used to build applications that are IO bound'? Also, what exactly are you referring to when you say 'IO bound'?
7. 37.▲
   by dexterous 15y ago

   > And __I feel__ that's what Rich is talking about here. (emphasis mine) I guess it's just that isn't it. There's a lot of talk here about what Rich might have/probably implied. I suppose it would have been infinitely more helpful if he