python a bust?

[Christopher Mahan]

Me, too. I like python very much. But most people
who use computers since 1996 use either java, perl, C or bash.

They know their language and don't want to change.

One reason could be: python is too simple. If you write
code that nobody understands (perl) you are a guru.

thomas

I think also that when people get paid per hour, the longer the
project, the more they make.

Subconsiously I think, people don't necessarily want computer
languages that are written fast.

Now, if you're a consultant and bill "for the job" then in fact it is
in your best interest to use a language that can be written quickly to
do a particular set of tasks.

Chris Mahan

 

[Emile van Sebille]

Christopher Mahan:

Now, if you're a consultant and bill "for the job" then in fact it is
in your best interest to use a language that can be written quickly to
do a particular set of tasks.

Fifteen years ago I had a job where I lifted county court seals and
clerk signatures from originals and prepared gifs from them. It
involved a fair amount of effort to clean things up and eventually I
got it down to about 2 hours per image. When I switched from billing
by the hour to simply 'billing by the job' and they saw what they were
paying per image, they brought the job in house.

Sometimes-it-works-and-sometimes-it-don't-ly y'rs,

 

[Steve Lamb]

What evidence do you have for this?

What evidence do you have to the contrary?

How do you account for contrary evidence, such as the evident thought
processes of many (not least the OP of this thread) that "more books on X =>
more interest in X => I should buy books on X"?

Let me counter then. I recently got a new job which, if I were to perform
to the expectations of the people who hired me, required me to learn two new
technologies I have been looking at for a while but have not yet touched. PHP
and MySQL. I spent 2 hours in the local Borders and B&N looking at PHP,
MySQL, PHP+MySQL books. After looking at about a little over a dozen books
total guess how many I bought?

2. _Core PHP Programming_ and _Core MySQL_. From what I could tell in
just a quick riffle through the pages those offered the best format for me to
learn from as well as use as a reference book.

I also will not be buying any more books on PHP or MySQL for a while.
Why? Because those, along with Sill's QMail book, topped $120 US Dollars.
Those books certainly did compete for my dollars and ~12 of them lost out.

For the record Barnes & Noble had about 6 Python book on their shelves and
Borders about a dozen. I didn't pick up any of them even though the only
Python book in my posession right now is Beazley's _Python Essential
Reference_ which I bought several years ago. Why? Because I know v2.3 is
just coming out and didn't want to get a book on v2.2 when the v1.5.2 book has
held me in good stead thusfar.

Now that we've presented anecdotal evidence both both sides care to share
why you think that your way of thinking is the predominant one; IE more books
on the shelf means you're going to buy more books on that topic?

 

[Ben Finney]

What evidence do you have to the contrary?

The one who presents the theorem is the one on whom the burden of proof
falls. Messrs Kuchling presented something as fact, without supporting
evidence nor accounting of contrary evidence.

why you think that your way of thinking is the predominant one; IE
more books on the shelf means you're going to buy more books on that
topic?

Thanks, I don't need any straw men. I never said this way of thinking
was mine, nor that it was predominant.

 

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Or perhaps Pythonistas are smarter than other people and buy their
books online.

That wouldn't make me smarter. I live 5 blocks away from Barnes & Noble
downtown. Lotsa other people are similarly well situatated according to
where they work.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

Brandon's Law (after Godwin's Law):
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of
a person being called a troll approaches one RAPIDLY."

 

[Brandon J. Van Every]

There's a finite number of dollars being spent on general Python
books; no point in having 15 titles chasing after the same market.
The recent run of topic-specific books is very heartening, however.

Of course, one could work on *growing* the Python market, so that there's a
perceived need for more books. There are clearly more basic Java books
available than basic Python books, and I doubt their authors are starving.
Also, in high tech one can compete by having "the most current" book for
whatever langauge / API. Sure this book is regarded as a good book... if it
was printed 3 years ago and someone else printed something 1 year ago, I'm
going to go with the latter.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

Brandon's Law (after Godwin's Law):
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of
a person being called a troll approaches one RAPIDLY."

 

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Now that we've presented anecdotal evidence both both sides care
to share why you think that your way of thinking is the predominant
one; IE more books on the shelf means you're going to buy more books
on that topic?

Steve, an important question is what programmer demographic you represent,
vs. how many demographics can be sold to. I, for instance, will never buy a
big-picture big-print tech manual, I don't care what subject it's on. In
fact, as years have progressed I'm unlikely to buy any books at all. When I
did so in the past, my tastes tended towards the exceedingly dense, dry, and
academic. I'm fully aware, however, that "Learn C++ in 21 days" and "C++
for Dummies" do sell copies to somebody. Somebody with different needs and
a different brain than my own.

As for total volume of books, I seriously doubt that you can sell more
Python books simply by having more of such books available. You have to
look at the strategic realities: according to one survey I saw recently,
Java is being used by 53% of people on projects, C# is 25%, Python is 8%.
All surveys I've ever seen about language use have roughly the same orders
of magnitude, and most are much less generous to Python than 8%.
Truthfully, people will not buy more Python books until Python is used more
prevailantly.

That's where real marketing efforts "like the big boys" come in. The Python
community can either grow the market for the language, or it can atrophize
and be regarded as a has-been 5 years from now.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

Brandon's Law (after Godwin's Law):
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of
a person being called a troll approaches one RAPIDLY."

 

[Brandon J. Van Every]

And thank heavens for that. Most books on C++ (and the same goes for
all kinds of other technical subjects) actually do nothing other to
make it harder to find the decent books. Ironically, the good books
often seem to get published first, followed afterwards by a glut of
awful ones jumping on the bandwagon. So much for competition...

But the questions are:
1) do the "crappy" books sell briskly to someone?
2) is a plethora of books a healthy sign for a language?

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

Brandon's Law (after Godwin's Law):
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of
a person being called a troll approaches one RAPIDLY."

 

[Brandon J. Van Every]

"Brandon J. Van Every" <[email protected]>
wrote in message


Unfortunately, I am not a kinda of marketing person ...

Well, this is less a matter of having some official qualification (I
certainly don't) than having a head for it, and for getting things done. I
think in my case, the pressure of running my own business and being
responsible for all of my own missteps has made me better able to see when
some avenues of discussion are a complete waste of time.

Anyway, I must congratulate you for the Python logo:

I'll take that as collective congratulation for the py-design-forum, and a
specific accolade for Tim Parkin, the designer. I could not possibly take
the congratulation specifically! My main role has been to light a match
under other people's toes and force people to make decisions instead of
hemming and hawing endlessly. I tried my hand at "graphic designer wannabe"
and offered a couple of shaky concepts of my own. By doing so, I forced
others with more skill to put up or shut up. Once real graphic designers
started putting up, we got some results. Now, if only we can get PSF to see
the wisdom of progress... we haven't secured their buy-in for this logo yet.

it is ways better
than any other Python logo I have seen (so far) and it looks really
professional. The font is so and so, but the stylized snake is
perfect, and very original.

I think we have consensus that the font needs improvement, even from the
designer. He didn't want to spend lotsa time angsting about the font if we
didn't even have PSF's buy-in about the logo itself yet. A wise move on his
part: PSF has a lot of trouble cutting the chase and shipping things in the
art dept. The web redesign process, for instance, has been interminable.

Yes, but the idea I had in mind was something like "relax, we are not
in war against Java or C# or anything else, let us wait for a bit
before complaining about Python dead".

I have seen the DEC Alpha CPU torn out from under me. As far as I'm
concerned, any hardware / language / API / OS has enemies, and those that do
not market themselves properly are endangered. Considering that Python was
available before Java, it is not the success story that it could or should
be. The ugly truth of high is it's 1/3 technology and 2/3 marketing. If
you believe otherwise, then you haven't had Intel or Microsoft hand you your
ass yet.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

Brandon's Law (after Godwin's Law):
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of
a person being called a troll approaches one RAPIDLY."

 

[Brandon J. Van Every]

I think also that when people get paid per hour, the longer the
project, the more they make.

Subconsiously I think, people don't necessarily want computer
languages that are written fast.

Now, if you're a consultant and bill "for the job" then in fact it is
in your best interest to use a language that can be written quickly to
do a particular set of tasks.

Or a business owner. I want more productivity because when I write my
games, it's *my* money I'm losing. Also as a consultant I think better
tools is a way to manage project risk. You've got so many other ways for a
client to waste your time, to put you behind schedule, you'd like to have
your tools not be an additional way for the project to blow up in your face.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

Brandon's Law (after Godwin's Law):
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of
a person being called a troll approaches one RAPIDLY."

 

[Paul Foley]

That's where real marketing efforts "like the big boys" come in. The Python
community can either grow the market for the language, or it can atrophize
and be regarded as a has-been 5 years from now.

Not such a bad fate. Lisp's been *stone-cold dead* for many years
now, and it's still going strong

 

[Paul Foley]

Of course, one could work on *growing* the Python market, so that there's a
perceived need for more books. There are clearly more basic Java books
available than basic Python books, and I doubt their authors are starving.
Also, in high tech one can compete by having "the most current" book for
whatever langauge / API. Sure this book is regarded as a good book... if it
was printed 3 years ago and someone else printed something 1 year ago, I'm
going to go with the latter.

That's a pretty dumb policy, unless it's about something that's
actually likely to be out of date in 3 years. Which is unlikely for
anything of real value (XML books are out of date before the ink is
dry, of course).

When it has to do with computers, the best way to get up-to-date
information on the latest thing is likely to be to buy 30+ year old
Lisp books

 

[Erik Max Francis]

Anyway, I must congratulate you for the Python logo: ...

As far as I can tell, Brandon was not involved in any substantive way
with the creation of that logo, despite the obvious implication he made
by posting about it to get input. (Several people reasonably assumed
that he was the creator, when that is not the case.)

--
Erik Max Francis && (e-mail address removed) && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/ \
\__/ Never be the first to believe / Never be the last to deceive
-- Florence, _Chess_

 

[Emile van Sebille]

Brandon J. Van Every:

All surveys I've ever seen about language use have roughly the same orders
of magnitude, and most are much less generous to Python than 8%.
Truthfully, people will not buy more Python books until Python is used more
prevailantly.

That's where real marketing efforts "like the big boys" come in. The Python
community can either grow the market for the language, or it can atrophize
and be regarded as a has-been 5 years from now.

Hmmm...

That 8% sounds familiar... something about Apple's market share in
PCs 10-15 years ago or Sony's in TVs about the same time. Python
should be as much a has-been in 10-15 years.

 

[Brandon J. Van Every]

That's a pretty dumb policy, unless it's about something that's
actually likely to be out of date in 3 years.

I'm a Windoze game developer. DirectX is *always* out of date, every year.
Not that I've yet deigned to buy a book on it, but I have browsed the
shelves occasionally. And I do note that several versions of Python have
been shipped in the past 3 years, most recently 2.3.

Which is unlikely for anything of real value

Prejudiced nonsense on your part.

(XML books are out of date before the ink is dry, of course).

As are so many things in computer programming. Throwaway APIs are de
rigeur.

When it has to do with computers, the best way to get up-to-date
information on the latest thing is likely to be to buy 30+ year old
Lisp books

You've gotta be kidding me. Even 12 years ago, "Computer Graphics:
Principles and Practice" didn't teach texture mapping. Along came DOOM.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

"We live in a world of very bright people building
crappy software with total shit for tools and process."
- Ed Mckenzie

 

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Hmmm...

That 8% sounds familiar... something about Apple's market share in
PCs 10-15 years ago or Sony's in TVs about the same time. Python
should be as much a has-been in 10-15 years.

Apple almost went under and is a decided minority computing platform today.
The demand for Mac developers is way smaller than the damand for Windows
developers. Can't comment on Sony TVs, I haven't shopped for TVs lately.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

Brandon's Law (after Godwin's Law):
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of
a person being called a troll approaches one RAPIDLY."

 

[Patrick Maupin]

I have seen the DEC Alpha CPU torn out from under me. As far as I'm
concerned, any hardware / language / API / OS has enemies, and those that do
not market themselves properly are endangered. Considering that Python was
available before Java, it is not the success story that it could or should
be. The ugly truth of high is it's 1/3 technology and 2/3 marketing. If
you believe otherwise, then you haven't had Intel or Microsoft hand you your
ass yet.

I don't dispute that Python could/should do better against Java.
(I'm actually pretty agnostic on this statement.)

However, comparing hardware and software for cost/benefit is much
worse than comparing apples and oranges. There are tangible, huge
costs associated with fabbing and selling a chip. If you can only
sell a few a year it's simply not worth it. Especially if you
chip requires additional support chips which are no longer sold
because it's not worth it for them, either.

For software, open source makes the economics even sweeter. You
can often easily justify the cost of paying to incrementally
improve a package you use based solely on your own needs. For
chips the economics are _way_ different. Assume for a moment that
the Alpha was open-sourced, and you wanted to create a "modern"
version of it. Are you willing to spend a half-millon dollars
on tools, and another half-million or more on a mask set to be
able to produce a 90nm version of it which won't even work with
any of the existing support chips because the IO cells on your
fancy new chip aren't even 3V-tolerant?

Bottom line: the probability of long-term availability of and
support for Alphas tends toward 0, while the probability of long-term
availability of and support for Python tends toward 1

Pat

P.S. The hardware economics _are_ currently undergoing a radical
change. If your requirements do not include cutting edge speed,
you _can_ build onesies/twosies using FPGAs for hundreds of dollars,
or even in some cases tens or hundreds of units for tens of dollars.

Or if you really only want a few fast ones, you could forego the
cost of the mask set, and "only" spend a half-million or so for tools,
and fifty to a hundred thousand for a few die on a "multi-project
wafer".

The future may hold "direct write" systems which do not require any
mask set. If these become practical, the cost of the software tools
will become a much bigger proportion of the total bill, but the number
of potential projects will skyrocket, so history and simple economics
show that competition will cause the tool prices to drop like a rock.

Once that happens, you may very well be able to build your Alpha
chips on demand

 

[Michele Simionato]

The ugly truth of high is it's 1/3 technology and 2/3 marketing. If
you believe otherwise, then you haven't had Intel or Microsoft hand you your
ass yet.

Actually I do think technology is by far the *less* important think, when
you look at the reasons behind the decisions of most firms.

I don't think a new logo will help a lot in making Python more "respectable",
but even if it help a bit, making Python more "visible", it would be okay.

What I think is a significate step in the right direction is the
fact that now Python 2.3 is being shipped will all the new OS X
Macintosh boxes. That's something.
If we could have Python shipping with all Windows boxes and Jython shipping
with the Java SDK, THEN Python could take over the world ...


Michele

 

[Michele Simionato]

That wouldn't make me smarter. I live 5 blocks away from Barnes & Noble
downtown. Lotsa other people are similarly well situatated according to
where they work.

I lived < 50 meters from Barnes & Noble, still I bought my Python books
from Amazon.com. For instance "Python in a Nutshell" was available on-line
before than in the libraries, with 30% discount and free shipping. It
arrived in a couple of days.

Michele

 

[Andrew Dalke]

Michele Simionato:

I lived < 50 meters from Barnes & Noble, still I bought my Python books
from Amazon.com. For instance "Python in a Nutshell" was available on-line
before than in the libraries, with 30% discount and free shipping. It
arrived in a couple of days.

Try also bookpool.com for technical books. PiaN is 43% off. With
3-4 day UPS ground it's $24.12, which for a book with list price of
$34.95 means it's 31% off. And you can get cheaper shipping if you
are willing to wait longer.

Andrew
(e-mail address removed)