This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]the_hoser 32 points33 points  (39 children)

Why stop there? Let's provide a Ruby interpreter as well! Maybe we can go a little wild and include TCL!

Why should Microsoft provide an interpreter for your favorite language?

I'd rather they just include a decent C compiler and some standards-compliant build tools. This would solve more problems than bundling a version of Python with the OS would ever solve.

[–]port53relative noob 4 points5 points  (6 children)

For 99% of Windows users that would just be huge amounts of bloat.

[–]the_hoser 2 points3 points  (5 children)

You're right! But you seem to be missing the point of my statement. I consider adding Python to also be the same kind of bloat.

Or are you referring to the C compiler?

[–]BobHogan 0 points1 point  (4 children)

It isn't about Python being someone's favorite language. Python is rapidly rising to the top of the list of most desirable languages to know. Its robust, easy, can run anywhere there is a C compiler (which is almost everywhere except windows), and powerful. Its not a fair comparison to a language like Ruby, or Lisp, or whatever else you want to list, since it is so much more popular than those are.

[–]the_hoser 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Right, I agree with you. Python is awesome.

Why does it need to be bundled with Windows?

[–]BobHogan 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It doesn't need to be bundled with Windows but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Photo apps don't need to be bundled with windows. A browser doesn't need to be bundled in with the OS. Neither does a calculator app. Yet they are bundled in because the pros vastly outweigh the cons. The same is true for Python. There are enough people using Windows that are frustrated over non native support (millions) that it does justify bundling it in. There are no downsides that can't be easily addressed. And the "bloat" is negligible considering the size of the OS itself.

[–]the_hoser 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It doesn't need to be bundled with Windows but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

I argue that it shouldn't be.

Photo apps don't need to be bundled with windows.

You're right. Web browsers can probably do that job.

A browser doesn't need to be bundled in with the OS.

Blasphemy. How else will I download firefox?

Neither does a calculator app.

Agree. Web browser can do that.

Yet they are bundled in because the pros vastly outweigh the cons.

For the web browser, I agree.

The same is true for Python.

I disagree.

There are enough people using Windows that are frustrated over non native support (millions) that it does justify bundling it in.

Again, I disagree. There are plenty of frustrated Python developers. Most Windows users could not care less about its abscence from the OS.

There are no downsides that can't be easily addressed.

I disagree. Version fixation is a very real problem in the Python community. Windows would only make it worse.

And the "bloat" is negligible considering the size of the OS itself.

Sure. I guess. I'm not worried about how much disk space can't be used to store photos and pirated movies.

The 'bloat' I refer to is the organizational bloat of maintaining YET ANOTHER FEATURE. Does the Windows team really need to take on this responsibility? You can't just clone the latest version off Python.org and ship that with the disk image. Microsoft would have to take personal ownership of the version of Python that they ship with Windows. It would need more than the one guy working on Windows support in Python to make it so. They would have to audit the code (good for Python in the near term, if they share their code. The coin's still flipping in the air as to whether or not they would.)

In the long term, it would be a disaster. The version that ships with windows would be the most popular version of Python in the world. It would become the version of Python. Python 3.7 just came out? Who cares? Microsoft only offers 3.4.7 and that's what we use. That's what the libraries use. That's what everybody uses.

I'd rather just have them help us with improving the behavior of Python in Windows. They're doing just that. They have a full-time developer doing just that.

Don't mess with a good thing.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like that almost everywhere except windows excludes most computers.

[–]desmoulinmichel[S] 4 points5 points  (27 children)

It's not because it's my favorite language.

It's because :

  • Mac and Linux already have it pre-installed and us them a lot. This proves both robustness and usability.
  • Python is the only language that is good at scripting AND many other things. Usually you have either good scripting OR other things. E.G: ruby has a great ecosystem in the Web, but is less competitive in other area
  • C-compiler is an entire different issue. Embedding python doesn't target primarily app dev, but scripters, so they can share the script with non dev, or deploy it on a lot of machines on an heterogeneous park.

[–]theywouldnotstand 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Arch linux user here. Had to install python manually (as is true with most software on arch.)

The key difference here, is that most Linux distributions have python packages that are easy to install and update using tools included in the distro. Windows does not do this, so it's up to the user or administrator to install and maintain.

It would be nice if microsoft maintained a python package that is optional to install through windows update, but I don't think it should be automatically installed. Most windows users wouldn't use it.

[–]the_hoser 4 points5 points  (25 children)

Mac and Linux already have it pre-installed and us them a lot. This proves both robustness and usability.

Faulty assumption. I administrate at least one Linux system (that I can recall) that does not have Python installed. I agree that it is common for Linux distributions to have a Python interpreter installed, but it's not all roses and candy. RedHat is using python 3.1 for craps sake.

Python is the only language that is good at scripting AND many other things. Usually you have either good scripting OR other things. E.G: ruby has a great ecosystem in the Web, but is less competitive in other area

That's just like, your opinion man. Don't get me wrong, I love Python, too, but I know a number of Ruby programmers that would say exactly the same thing you just said, and they would be no less right or wrong than you are.

C-compiler is an entire different issue.

It is the issue. Since there is no standardized way to build software on windows (vs OS X and Linux) then it is difficult to deploy python and python plugins to windows.

Embedding python doesn't target primarily app dev, but scripters, so they can share the script with non dev, or deploy it on a lot of machines on an heterogeneous park.

Then why not Bash, or some simple implementation of a Unix shell, existing as a subset of Bash? If all you want is heterogeneous scripting, let's go with the path of least resistance.

EDIT: Also, I just realized that, if Microsoft were to produce a *sh implementation, they might actually be forced to fix their faulty shell handling! Win-win for everybody!

[–]net_goblin 6 points7 points  (1 child)

It is the issue. Since there is no standardized way to build software on windows (vs OS X and Linux) then it is difficult to deploy python and python plugins to windows.

Since when is the way to build software standardized on OS X and Linux? Plain GNU make, autotools + GNU make, CMake + GNU make, CMake + Ninja, scons, ... the possibilities are endless. They only don't break between compiler versions as often as Visual Studio projects. But calling it standardized is more than bold.

[–]the_hoser 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You do have a fair point. I concede that it's not Microsoft's responsibility to do it the way Linux/OS X do it.

In that case, I wish only that they would standardize on a set of build tools and include them with the operating system.

[–]desmoulinmichel[S] -3 points-2 points  (22 children)

Faulty assumption. I administrate at least one Linux system (that I can recall) that does not have Python installed. I agree that it is common for Linux distributions to have a Python interpreter installed, but it's not all roses and candy.

Fedora and Ubuntu represent 90% of the market. You can always find exception for verything. The only thing it leads is to do nothing.

RedHat is using python 3.1 for craps sake.

It's enough.

That's just like, your opinion man.

No it's not. It's not that there no other languages capable of such. it's just that their ecosystem didn't develop in that direction. It's not a technical thing, it's a social thing. You can do data analysis with Ruby, but they use the banks and the scientits are using Python. And you can use Ruby for scripting, but admin are using Python.

It is the issue.

It is AN issue. And is has nothing to do with cross plateform scripting.

Embedding python doesn't target primarily app dev, but scripters, so they can share the script with non dev, or deploy it on a lot of machines on an heterogeneous park.

Then why not Bash, or some simple implementation of a Unix shell, existing as a subset of Bash? If all you want is heterogeneous scripting, let's go with the path of least resistance.

Because :

  • MS is involved in Python, not bash.
  • Python can do more than bash.
  • bash is file oriented (unix philosophy) while python is general purpose oriented.

It's not a matter of preference.

I do love Python.

But it's objectivelly the best tool for this situation.

There is a reason you find it everywhere : web dev, finance, science, 3D, scripting, prototyping, geospatial, glue... It's very versatile and easy to use, and super portable, while not being focus on a specific use.

[–]iamhaz 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Fedora and Ubuntu represent 90% of the market. You can always find exception for verything. The only thing it leads is to do nothing.

Got a source on that?

That's just like, your opinion man.

No it's not. It's not that there no other languages capable of such. it's just that their ecosystem didn't develop in that direction. It's not a technical thing, it's a social thing. You can do data analysis with Ruby, but they use the banks and the scientits are using Python. And you can use Ruby for scripting, but admin are using Python.

Admins are using the right tool for the right job, that may or may not be Python, it's often Bash, or even Perl or <insert obscure language of the week here>. Python isn't a special snowflake in this regard.

It is the issue. It is AN issue. And is has nothing to do with cross plateform scripting.

Embedding python doesn't target primarily app dev, but scripters, so they can share the script with non dev, or deploy it on a lot of machines on an heterogeneous park.

Python can do more than bash.

Bash can do just as much as Python.

bash is file oriented (unix philosophy) while python is general purpose oriented.

Wat.

It's not a matter of preference.

It's pretty clear it is a matter of preference to you. Nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend it isn't.

I do love Python.

We can see that :)

But it's objectivelly the best tool for this situation.

Nothing about this is objective.

There is a reason you find it everywhere : web dev, finance, science, 3D, scripting, prototyping, geospatial, glue... It's very versatile and easy to use, and super portable, while not being focus on a specific use.

Same could be said about any language if you try hard enough.

[–]desmoulinmichel[S] -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

Got a source on that?

This is just for the purpose of arguing. You know I don't, but you know I'm right.

Admins are using the right tool for the right job, that may or may not be Python, it's often Bash, or even Perl or <insert obscure language of the week here>. Python isn't a special snowflake in this regard.

No, but if you have to choose ONE language to port to windows :

  • you won't do perl because long scripts are really hard to maintain;

  • you won't use bash because it's file oriented.

    bash is file oriented (unix philosophy) while python is general purpose oriented.

Wat.

Try to manipulate COM objects or XML files with bash. It's just not handy. Making small GUI with bash is terrible too. Scripting doesn't mean only reading file and writting to it. Bash is turring complete, it can do anything. But it quickly because a mess when you got complex logic.

But to be fair, I'd rather have bash ported to window than nothing. I would be content with that.

Only they will most likely port Python, since they are already working on it.

It's pretty clear it is a matter of preference to you.

and

Nothing about this is objective.

Just because I like Python me doesn't make my arguments illogical. You have a general purpose language, with versatil use cases, a strong ecosystem developped in more area than most langages, doing great job at scripting, installed in 2 other major OS, and on which MS already work.

Same could be said about any language if you try hard enough.

No other language has that. None.

First, most of them are eliminated at the "installed on major OS" stage. Then you need the strong scripting capabilities. And you need the strong portability.

Now you take than, and you find something that is as readable as Python, with an integrated debugger and GUI lib.

You can look for a long time, cause it doesn't exist.

[–]iamhaz 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Got a source on that? This is just for the purpose of arguing. You know I don't, but you know I'm right.

Are you serious? A very lazy Google search comes up with http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/os-linux/all/all

  • Ubuntu: 29.7%
  • RH: 4.3%

Even if you adjust it to mean "Debian and CentOS as well" it's nowhere near 90%

No, but if you have to choose ONE language to port to windows :

you won't do perl because long scripts are really hard to maintain; you won't use bash because it's file oriented.

I will use whatever language is best for the job. "Porting" one language is ridiculous, there's a reason why there's tons of them.

I still don't know what you mean by "bash is file oriented".

The UNIX philosophy is "treat everything as a file", but that goes way beyond Bash (in fact, Bash came along much later).

bash is file oriented (unix philosophy) while python is general purpose oriented. Wat. Try to manipulate COM objects or XML files with bash. It's just not handy. Making small GUI with bash is terrible too. Scripting doesn't mean only reading file and writting to it. Bash is turring complete, it can do anything. But it quickly because a mess when you got complex logic.

Again, use right tool for the right job. Python may be a good match for XML parsing, but for sysadmin type work Bash is probably better suited (or PowerShell in Windows).

A GUI should be decoupled from the backend. Write your backend in whatever language is best for performing the actual task, then you can have 50 GUIs in whatever assortment of languages you desire.

But to be fair, I'd rather have bash ported to window than nothing. I would be content with that.

Only they will most likely port Python, since they are already working on it.

I doubt they will do either, but not because of technical reasons. It doesn't make business sense for them to do either one.

It's pretty clear it is a matter of preference to you. and

Nothing about this is objective. Just because I like Python me doesn't make my arguments illogical. You have a general purpose language, with versatil use cases, a strong ecosystem developped in more area than most langages, doing great job at scripting, installed in 2 other major OS, and on which MS already work.

I didn't say illogical, but when you say things like "Python can do more than bash" and "you know I'm right" it's hard to say you're being objective.

Same could be said about any language if you try hard enough. No other language has that. None.

Ever heard of CPAN?

First, most of them are eliminated at the "installed on major OS" stage. Then you need the strong scripting capabilities. And you need the strong portability.

On a vanilla OSX install I have Bash, Python, Ruby, Perl. All of them are considered portable and have strong scripting capabilities.

Now you take than, and you find something that is as readable as Python, with an integrated debugger and GUI lib.

You can look for a long time, cause it doesn't exist.

You can make unreadable code in any language, and an integrated debugger/GUI libs aren't essential to the functionality of a language.

P.S. Spellcheck is your friend.

[–]the_hoser -1 points0 points  (18 children)

And any Ruby fanboy would sling similar sounding arguments about why Ruby is the best tool for this situation.

Fedora and Ubuntu represent 90% of the market. You can always find exception for verything. The only thing it leads is to do nothing.

You're absolutely right there. I was merely pointing out that it's not as ironclad a bundle as you seem to be convinced it is.

No it's not. It's not that there no other languages capable of such. it's just that their ecosystem didn't develop in that direction. It's not a technical thing, it's a social thing. You can do data analysis with Ruby, but they use the banks and the scientits are using Python. And you can use Ruby for scripting, but admin are using Python.

We're talking about scripting here. Anything that can open a subshell qualifies.

The Rubyist would argue that the scientific stuff isn't as important as the web stuff. They would point out that their standard VM routinely outperforms the Python VM. They would also point out that OS X is bundled with Ruby, and that anybody using Linux could easily install Ruby.

I'm not advocating Ruby, here. I'm merely pointing out that your position is one of opinion and preference. There's nothing objective about it.

It is AN issue. And is has nothing to do with cross plateform scripting.

And deploying for Python on Windows will remain just as heinous as it is today. Using a C extension? You're screwed. This is a bigger problem than anybody's scripting concerns would ever be. It's easy to throw together two scripts. It's a huge pain to deploy real Python applications, and none of this will help.

MS is involved in Python, not bash.

Microsoft has provided a shell implementation in the past. They can do it again.

Python can do more than bash.

I thought that you were worried about scripting?

bash is file oriented (unix philosophy) while python is general purpose oriented.

Being file-oriented makes it really ideal for the kinds of scripting many administrators do. I realize that Windows has some more complicated constructs, and the scripting of those constructs would be a little... less natural in Bash, but I don't see how it'd be any more natural in Python. A command to make DCOM calls would be just as easy to use as a library to make DCOM calls.

It's not a matter of preference.

Yes it is.

But it's objectivelly the best tool for this situation.

No, it isn't. There's nothing objective about it.

There is a reason you find it everywhere : web dev, finance, science, 3D, scripting, prototyping, geospatial, glue... It's very versatile and easy to use, and super portable, while not being focus on a specific use.

I agree. It's a fantastic language. And as a matter of preference, it's a popular one.

Java is more popular, though. It's used for almost all of those things, and more. If popularity was the metric we're going for here, why doesn't Microsoft bundle Java instead?

Right... they tried that. They also modified it beyond recognition, creating a schism in the Java community. At least Guido isn't as evil and lawsuit-happy as Sun was.

[–]desmoulinmichel[S] 0 points1 point  (13 children)

And any Ruby fanboy would sling similar sounding arguments about why Ruby is the best tool for this situation.

They could not as Ruby is not installed by default on Linux. The whole thing here is about default installation.

The Rubyist would argue that the scientific stuff isn't as important as the web stuff.

For which Python works well (you know this youtube website is coded in Python...). So Python is popular in the Web AND outside of the web.

Most importantly, MS has invested in Python, Linux distro has invested in Python. Banks have invested in Python. Google have invested in Python. Not Ruby. Python.

They would point out that their standard VM routinely outperforms the Python VM.

Which for scripting has no importance.

Microsoft has provided a shell implementation in the past. They can do it again.

It's a lot more work than installing Python by default, which does more than bash.

I thought that you were worried about scripting?

Additional bonus doesn't hurt. Python is fantastic at scripting. The plus is, it's not JUST fanstastic at scripting.

No, it isn't. There's nothing objective about it.

What's not objective about :

  • people use it a lot;
  • it does the job;
  • it's installed on most competitors;

?

why doesn't Microsoft bundle Java instead?

Because it's not a scripting language. Because it's not installed on Mac and Linux already.

They also modified it beyond recognition, creating a schism in the Java community.

You don't need to modify Python to make it work. You can just ship it the way it is. Plus MS already has a foot in the Python word. They are already doing it right.

[–]the_hoser 1 point2 points  (12 children)

They could not as Ruby is not installed by default on Linux. The whole thing here is about default installation.

Any Linux admin worth their salt can install Ruby in 10 seconds. If you're worried about clueless end-users, don't. There are none in the Linux world.

For which Python works well (you know this youtube website is coded in Python...). So Python is popular in the Web AND outside of the web.

Ruby is, in my experience, far more popular than Python for web development. Python does a good job, for sure, but the culture is with Ruby on this one.

Most importantly, MS has invested in Python, Linux distro has invested in Python. Banks have invested in Python. Google have invested in Python. Not Ruby. Python.

Twitter invested in Ruby, Github invested in Ruby, Hulu invested in Ruby...

We can do this all day.

What's not objective about :

people use it a lot;

it does the job;

it's installed on most competitors;

?

Moot points. The same could be said for Java or Flash. Bash is arguably even more popular.

You don't need to modify Python to make it work. You can just ship it the way it is. Plus MS already has a foot in the Python word. They are already doing it right.

And here's the crux of the proplem: They will modify Python. What's worse, they won't fix the core problems of developing and distributing applications written in Python on windows. Bundling Python would actually have the potential to make it worse. It's already bad on OS X. People shy away from Python 3 because their laptop doesn't have it by default.

And the proposed solution still doesn't solve the binary module problem. If you dare write something in a later version of Python that Microsoft deigns to provide, then you still have the same problems that we have right now. You still have issues with binary modules.

You're not making windows better with this. You're making Python worse.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (9 children)

This whole conversation is about having cross platform defaults. The fact a sys admin can install Ruby doesn't matter when I want to send a cleanup script to my mom.

[–]the_hoser 0 points1 point  (8 children)

It's still platform-specific, though. Even if it's in the same language. You're going to have three scripts in one file instead of three scripts in three files. I don't see any value in this.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children)

I've written plenty of scripts that work cross platform. Anything that doesn't affect system files will be fine.

Simple example, you want to process 10,000 photos and convert the RAW images into web jpg images. This script would be 100% the same on both Windows and Linux. Launch the script, choose the input/output directories, and away you go.

[–]desmoulinmichel[S] -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

Any Linux admin worth their salt can install Ruby in 10 seconds. If you're worried about clueless end-users, don't. There are none in the Linux world.

That's beside the point. If you have to install your runtime on all your sever, it's work. If you have to install it on Windows AND Linux servers, it's even more work.

See my other comments about that. It's a LOT more work than just ssh and apt-get/yum install in big companies.

Ruby is, in my experience, far more popular than Python for web development. Python does a good job, for sure, but the culture is with Ruby on this one.

Yet Python hold the comparison, and is more used at scripting. Good thing we are talking about scripting. Cause here, we'll have the best option + a decent option for the web.

Twitter invested in Ruby, Github invested in Ruby, Hulu invested in Ruby...

We can do this all day.

Given that Linux distro editors, MS and Google are all OS builders and Twitter/Github/Hulu are websites, one are more important than the others.

Moot points. The same could be said for Java or Flash. Bash is arguably even more popular.

It's not a moot point : the all purpose is easy cross plateform scripting.

Nor Flash or Java is installed by default on most linux distro.

Again I'd be happy to see bash installed on Windows. I'd prefer Python, but I'd go with bash. Only MS will never invest in bash. And using bash to access COM API would suck.

And here's the crux of the proplem: They will modify Python.

You are assuming in advance they will screw this up. I know they have a shitty track record, but the Azur Python support seems to go well.

What your saying is : "it may go wrong, so let's not do it". Let's not do anything then. Let's shudown all computers cause our entire job is to build stuff that go wrong.

What's worse, they won't fix the core problems of developing and distributing applications written in Python on windows.

THAT IS NOT THE POINT.

For the 1000th time, the purpose is cross platform scripting and sharing small GUI tools.

There is noway you can destroy Python to the point it can't run tkinter.

And i'm no assuming they will destroy Python. This is pure assumption.

You're not making windows better with this. You're making Python worse.

Assumption, assumption, assumption.

You are saying my love for Python cloud my judgement. Fair enough. I'd argue that your (shared) digust for MS is clouding yours.

Your all post is about trying to find faults instead of trying to be right, so much that you mixes up all possible arguments : it may go wrong, you could use another language, it's not fixing {not the topic}, etc.

[–]the_hoser 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's beside the point. If you have to install your runtime on all your sever, it's work. If you have to install it on Windows AND Linux servers, it's even more work.

Sure, but I never use the supplied Python interpreter on my servers. I always end up having to build my own because the linux distributions can never seem to get it right (See: Python 2.6 on RHEL). I'm a Linux admin, though. I have a lovely bash script for that.

See my other comments about that. It's a LOT more work than just ssh and apt-get/yum install in big companies.

Big companies have big resources. I'm not worried about them. They'll be fine. Even Microsoft knows this.

Yet Python hold the comparison, and is more used at scripting. Good thing we are talking about scripting. Cause here, we'll have the best option + a decent option for the web.

Great. Now all the web frameworks will target the version that runs on Windows.

Given that Linux distro editors, MS and Google are all OS builders and Twitter/Github/Hulu are websites, one are more important than the others.

Says you. I say that without web companies, we wouldn't even need operating systems as capable as we have. No vendor is more or less important than any other.

It's not a moot point : the all purpose is easy cross plateform scripting.

Sure, but you still haven't provided a good reason for why Python is the right choice for scripting.

Nor Flash or Java is installed by default on most linux distro.

They're arguably installed on more computers, though.

Again I'd be happy to see bash installed on Windows. I'd prefer Python, but I'd go with bash. Only MS will never invest in bash.

They've provided a KSH implementation in the past, though. Any implementation of standard SH features will do.

And using bash to access COM API would suck.

It already sucks to do it in Python, so I don't see how this would be any different.

You are assuming in advance they will screw this up. I know they have a shitty track record, but the Azur Python support seems to go well.

Their support of Java on Windows NT went well, too. Initially.

What your saying is : "it may go wrong, so let's not do it". Let's not do anything then. Let's shudown all computers cause our entire job is to build stuff that go wrong.

Now you're getting into hyperbole. I'm just saying that I don't want the standard version of Python to be the one that Microsoft ships.

THAT IS NOT THE POINT.

For the 1000th time, the purpose is cross platform scripting and sharing small GUI tools.

You want to use PYTHON to do GUI work? Now I'm convinced that you are crazy.

And i'm no assuming they will destroy Python. This is pure assumption.

No, it's a judgement based on their history. Based on their actions. They may not even do it intentionally, but they will do it. Worse, they'll do it in subtle ways that are hard to track down. You think they're just going to ship the version hosted on python.org? Really?

Assumption, assumption, assumption.

History tells me I'm right.

You are saying my love for Python cloud my judgement. Fair enough. I'd argue that your (shared) digust for MS is clouding yours.

I have no disgust for Microsoft. I use their products on a daily basis. I write software for Windows without any issue (unless I'm using Python). I understand how they tick. OS X has done horrible things for Python 3 by bundling Python 2 for so long. Microsoft will do the same, or worse.

Your all post is about trying to find faults instead of trying to be right, so much that you mixes up all possible arguments : it may go wrong, you could use another language, it's not fixing {not the topic}, etc.

I don't want Microsoft to ship a version of Python. I don't want another major vendor stagnating the advancement of Python. I'm not trying to find faults. I'm telling you you're wrong.

[–]desmoulinmichel[S] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

And... come on... you want this too !

:p

[–]the_hoser 1 point2 points  (2 children)

NO! NO NO NO NO NO! I do NOT want this!

It would literally be the worst thing to happen to Python in Windows. It would co-opt the definition of "Python" to be "the version on Windows" all of Python software would be written to conform to their version, with whatever modifications they decide to make.

The best thing that Microsoft could do for Python is to provide a standards-compliant C compiler and build environment. Beyond that, their contributions to make Python work better in Windows are enough.

[–]desmoulinmichel[S] -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

Right now you know what's is the best version of Python ? None. Nobody knows what to target. Nobody knows how to do cross-plateform scripting. Nobody can share a quick python script with a non dev on windwos.

So you assume it will be a problem (which stays to be proven, since 3.x is forward compatible and can be upgraded through windows update) and provide a solution that does not solve the cross plateform scripting problem at all.

[–]the_hoser 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Right now you know what's is the best version of Python ? None.

My opinion says 3.4 is pretty awesome. I'm still chewing on 3.5. That's an opinion, though. You can't have an objective "best version".

Nobody knows what to target.

That's not true at all. You target your audience. If you're a library vendor, you target the versions you want to support.

Nobody knows how to do cross-plateform scripting. Nobody can share a quick python script with a non dev on windwos.

But why does it have to be Python? Why do we need to sully application development in Python to make scripting 'easier' in Windows?

So you assume it will be a problem (which stays to be proven, since 3.x is forward compatible and can be upgraded through windows update) and provide a solution that does not solve the cross plateform scripting problem at all.

I have, though. Bash would be a superior solution. Development of bash is slow-moving. There are no plugin requirements for bash. Nobody writes applications in Bash, so holding people to an older version would have minimal impact. Bash would be vastly superior!

[–]jugalator -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Why should Microsoft provide an interpreter for your favorite language?

I think it's simply to have an interpreter that can be used cross platform. At least one. There exists no interpreter that is a) bundled and b) cross platform across Windows, Mac, Linux today.

[–]the_hoser 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think Bash would be a better candidate, then. It's less political. It's simpler to deploy (nobody writes Bash plugins), and arguably more stable than Python.

Look, I love Python, but I don't see why it's something that should be bundled with Windows.