"Dinesh B Vadhia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > Your last paragraph is the gist of my note ie. it's the > documentation, documentation, documentation.
I agree it can be very variable in quality. One of the problems of Open Source is that there are more people who want to write code than there are who want to write documentation... > In addition to Python, we use Numpy/Scipy/webpy at > the server - all of them Python libraries written in Python > and/or C - and have faced no end of problems with > these libraries. All non standard items, all Open Source. > We also use HTML/CSS/JavaScript/JQuery at the browser All standard items for Browser work. Tools designed for the job. Have you tried using non standard browser code libraries like say the various graphing libraries for JavaScript? Or sound libraries, say? They are just as patchy in support. > Of course, these tools are fully documented including > the dead tree type! Exactly, but they are standard tools so need to be compared to core Python not the contributed software. Of course you could use Java on the server and then you could buy commercial libraries that do the same job as Numpy etc. But you have to pay hard $$$ for those. So you take your choice: persevere with Python and its libraries for its rapid development and hope the time savings outweigh the time spent working out how the libraries work or, pay out for the commercial products and hope the savings in quality(*) outweigh the expenditure. And also hope that the different tools work together because if they don't you can't go look at the source to fix it! Its all about making choices, but that's engineering - you choose the right trade off! (*)And of course that's a gamble too because there are many badly documented commercial libraries too! But at least you can complain to somebody! :-/ Alan G _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
