From catherine.devlin at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 23:31:54 2007 From: catherine.devlin at gmail.com (Catherine Devlin) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:31:54 -0400 Subject: [python-advocacy] Python intro at OLF Message-ID: <6523e39a0710021431t65dbe77dm5f3cf52f2dda0fde@mail.gmail.com> Hi, everybody! I wanted to report (and, OK, brag) on a successful Python introduction taught at Ohio LinuxFest on Saturday: http://www.ohiolinux.org/speakers.html#talk3_05 I think it went really well; either that, or OLF is full of liars, because I got lots of really heartwarming feedback. This was my favorite one: > Great work on the Python presentation at OLF 2007. Being a mainly C > programmer, I hadn't had much experience with Python before your > presentation, but now I'm having a lot of fun with it and the different > things in Visual Python. At my high school we can only take Visual Basic > and Java(both of which suck in my opinion), but I've loaded Python > Portable onto a USB drive so I might be able to show it off a bit at > school to get some others interested. Youth successfully corrupted, and committed to corrupting more! The funniest part about this email is that it was sent at 2:54 AM the night/morning after my presentation. Python: it's better than sleep. I think the key that I stumbled on was to use a very visually entertaining scenario to teach the code, cycle frequently between the code and the eye candy, and make them intimately tied (so zoning out through the code and only watching the eye candy wouldn't make sense). I use Visual Python to create a basic graphical animation of planets in orbit, evolving the simulation one step at a time, introducing a few more Python programming techniques with each step. I went through several cycles of showing a little code, then showing the resulting simulation; each cycle was about five minutes long, keeping their attention keen. By the end, I've got planets whizzing around the sun in crazy orbits and exploding when they collide. I got a nice, sizeable audience, too; I'm guessing 150-200, which is really good when you consider that I was scheduled opposite Jon 'maddog' Hall. That shows you how ripe thw world is to hear about Python. So anyway, feel free to take that approach as inspirational for your own work, or duplicate, use, abuse, and adapt my talk. All the material is at http://catherinedevlin.blogspot.com/2007/09/ohio-linuxfest-slides-code.html . It's not ready-to-watch on the web; you really need a human being to demonstrate it (though it's not hard to install vPython and just run the simulations). I'll try to make a screencast of it sometime in the next few months, too. I owe Richard Olenick for his PyCon 2007 talk ("Visual Python in a Computational Physics Course" for showing me how well Visual Python combines "simple" and "exciting". Go forth and speak, it's fun! I'm ready to do this one again, when appropriate opportunities arise. Actually, I'd love suggestions for other good venues to give talks like this; I've put the work into building it, may as well milk it for all it's worth. Besides, Ohio needs more Pythonistas if centralOH at python.org is going to take wing. Oh, and WATCH OUT FOR PROJECTOR COMPATIBILITY PROBLEMS! Load the *$%# NVidia drivers! One earlier attempt at this talk (at PenguiCon) was horribly sabotaged by a projector that just would. not. take. a signal from my laptop. I was so traumatized that I almost chickened out of submitting to OLF. We are, alas, not quite in the era when Linux will Just Work with projectors, Ubuntu notwithstanding. -- - Catherine http://catherinedevlin.blogspot.com/ From sdeibel at wingware.com Fri Oct 5 18:35:13 2007 From: sdeibel at wingware.com (Stephan Deibel) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:35:13 -0400 Subject: [python-advocacy] Python intro at OLF In-Reply-To: <6523e39a0710021431t65dbe77dm5f3cf52f2dda0fde@mail.gmail.com> References: <6523e39a0710021431t65dbe77dm5f3cf52f2dda0fde@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470667C1.7040707@wingware.com> Catherine Devlin wrote: > Hi, everybody! I wanted to report (and, OK, brag) on a successful > Python introduction taught at Ohio LinuxFest on Saturday: > http://www.ohiolinux.org/speakers.html#talk3_05 Just wanted to say: Thanks for doing this!! Talks like this (and peer recommendations in general) are a powerful force in marketing, er, advocating Python. - Stephan From mark.mchristensen at gmail.com Fri Oct 5 20:44:08 2007 From: mark.mchristensen at gmail.com (Mark Ramm) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 14:44:08 -0400 Subject: [python-advocacy] Python intro at OLF In-Reply-To: <470667C1.7040707@wingware.com> References: <6523e39a0710021431t65dbe77dm5f3cf52f2dda0fde@mail.gmail.com> <470667C1.7040707@wingware.com> Message-ID: Yea, I talked to a couple of folks who went to Ohio Linux Fest, last night (here in ann arbor MI) and they were raving about how good this talk was. --Mark On 10/5/07, Stephan Deibel wrote: > > Catherine Devlin wrote: > > Hi, everybody! I wanted to report (and, OK, brag) on a successful > > Python introduction taught at Ohio LinuxFest on Saturday: > > http://www.ohiolinux.org/speakers.html#talk3_05 > > Just wanted to say: Thanks for doing this!! > > Talks like this (and peer recommendations in general) are a > powerful force in marketing, er, advocating Python. > > - Stephan > _______________________________________________ > Advocacy mailing list > Advocacy at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy > -- Mark Ramm-Christensen email: mark at compoundthinking dot com blog: www.compoundthinking.com/blog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/advocacy/attachments/20071005/100d3bd1/attachment.htm From facundobatista at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 21:11:54 2007 From: facundobatista at gmail.com (Facundo Batista) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:11:54 -0300 Subject: [python-advocacy] CaFeConf 2007 Message-ID: CaFeConf is a conference organized by the CaFeLUG (Linux User Group from Capital Federal, Argentina). The complete name was "6th Open Conferences of GNU/Linux and Software Libre" (I wrote "libre" to not get confused by "free"). This year, as usual, the conference was a big success, with around 1200 assistants. It received articles in several newspapers, and even a major one published the streaming of the conference (streaming of the two big rooms, Auditorium and Aula Magna, were available). You can check this article of the Inquirer: http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/08/open-source-conference Python had a big participation in the conference. Python Argentina had a stand that attracted a lot of people (showing OLPCs always brings people, and they're basically Fedora + Python), and we even showed job offers. There were a lot of talks regarding Python, also. I must talk about my "Introduction to Python", that is now a classic, with more than 100 assistants, and the brand new "Python faster than C", talk that I prepared with Lucio Torre, that had a surprisingly good repercussion (with around 80 assistants and nobody throwing tomatoes after!). Of course, this last talk does not prove that Python is faster than C, but concludes than "if you program in C and not in Python, normally (not always, but a lot of times) you'll be doing premature optimization". Other talks involving Python were "Programming for the OLPC" of Alejandro David Weil and Alejandro J. Cura (also a classic, with even international coverage... http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/08/olpc-retro-futurist ), "Django, web programming with Python" of Javier Derderian, "How to develop games with Python and PyGame" of Hugo Ruscitti, "PyWeek: a game in 7 days" of Alejandro J. Cura and Daniel F Moisset. In general, the conference not only was about the software itself, but also about education, and the philosophy of FLOSS (for example, the keynote talked about the community of software libre, where we are, where we can go, what to worry about, etc). The full program is here: http://www.cafeconf.org/2007/modules/myconference/program.php?cid=1&programord=1 The conference even showed strange things, like the Conference Chair dressed as a penguin in the conference closure. We also have a party after. You can get a more detailed post (in Spanish), link to my two talks and to the photos here: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/post/1/298 Regards, -- . Facundo Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/ PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/ From jeff at taupro.com Wed Oct 10 12:10:15 2007 From: jeff at taupro.com (Jeff Rush) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 05:10:15 -0500 Subject: [python-advocacy] CaFeConf 2007 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470CA507.1010205@taupro.com> Facundo Batista wrote: > CaFeConf is a conference organized by the CaFeLUG (Linux User Group > from Capital Federal, Argentina). The complete name was "6th Open > Conferences of GNU/Linux and Software Libre" (I wrote "libre" to not > get confused by "free"). > > This year, as usual, the conference was a big success, with around > 1200 assistants. It received articles in several newspapers, and even > a major one published the streaming of the conference (streaming of > the two big rooms, Auditorium and Aula Magna, were available). You can > check this article of the Inquirer: > > http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/08/open-source-conference Facundo, thanks for reporting about this Python-related event. It's always good to hear what is happening here and there about Python, to encourage others and supply ideas. The talk about "Python faster than C" sounds fun and intriquing. -Jeff From tleeuwenburg at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 06:12:08 2007 From: tleeuwenburg at gmail.com (Tennessee Leeuwenburg) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:12:08 +1000 Subject: [python-advocacy] The python way to write web applications Message-ID: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> I've got a problem. Please, hear me out in case I've got it jumbled. Then feel free to criticize my understanding of things -- I declare Crocker's rules. There seems to be no Pythonic way to write web applications. There are python web application frameworks, but these stacks still require a lot of javascript expertise. It doesn't look as though I can write a cross-platform RIA with Python, authored from a linux development environment. I can write flex applications, but apollo isn't ready for linux yet. I can write Moonlight applications, but the authoring process is poorly documented, requires compilation of mozilla from source (!) and isn't up-to-date with respect to Silverlight. If I'm happy to constrain my widget set, I can use some javascript toolkits to hide away the javascript to some extent, but certainly for my purposes, and probably for all purposes, I just know I'll be up to my elboys in javascript in no time. I could try swigging mozilla and interacting with the browser directly, but this is a jungle of old documentation and is clearly not a well-supported process. The premier web toolkits like GWT and YUT appear to be totally Java-oriented. There just doesn't seem to be a Python solution to a modern web application. The best I can now imagine is a decoupled system with Python on the backend. Frankly, in this situation I don't see the point. The whole point of a web application is to present a cross-platform user interface using a deployment model which allows good control over the environment. It is, essentially, a UI decision. To give up Python on the UI seems to be giving up the very core of what it means to write a web app. Please, somebody, tell me I'm wrong! Cheers, -T -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/advocacy/attachments/20071012/5d42a69d/attachment.htm From lac at openend.se Fri Oct 12 07:25:44 2007 From: lac at openend.se (Laura Creighton) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:25:44 +0200 Subject: [python-advocacy] The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: Message from "Tennessee Leeuwenburg" of "Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:12:08 +1000." <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200710120525.l9C5PihS014128@theraft.openend.se> If you look at pypy, we have an experimental javascript back end which allows you to write your application in Python (or any of the other suppoorted dynamic language frontends, such as Prolog) and produce javascript which you can run in your browser. It is still very experimental, and not ready to be used in production, but I think it is what you are looking for. see: http://codespeak.net/pypy/dist/pypy/doc/js/whatis.html for the javascript docs http://play1.codespeak.net/ for some demos to play with -- but Bub and Bros will only work if the Bub-and-Bros server is up, which isn't often these days and http://codespeak.net/pypy/dist/pypy/doc/faq.html for the FAQ about pypy in general. Laura Creighton From jurgen at psibaworks.co.za Fri Oct 12 08:48:21 2007 From: jurgen at psibaworks.co.za (Jurgen Blignaut) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:48:21 +0200 Subject: [python-advocacy] The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <200710120525.l9C5PihS014128@theraft.openend.se> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> <200710120525.l9C5PihS014128@theraft.openend.se> Message-ID: <1192171701.9378.8.camel@sirius> There is also Zope and Plone and the relatively new but stable KSS (Kinetic Style Sheets) functionality developed for it, which allows you to write server side event handlers in Python for client side events. Brilliant! Jurgen Blignaut On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 07:25 +0200, Laura Creighton wrote: > If you look at pypy, we have an experimental javascript back end > which allows you to write your application in Python (or any of > the other suppoorted dynamic language frontends, such as Prolog) > and produce javascript which you can run in your browser. It is > still very experimental, and not ready to be used in production, > but I think it is what you are looking for. > > see: http://codespeak.net/pypy/dist/pypy/doc/js/whatis.html for > the javascript docs > http://play1.codespeak.net/ > for some demos to play with -- but Bub and Bros will only work if > the Bub-and-Bros server is up, which isn't often these days > and http://codespeak.net/pypy/dist/pypy/doc/faq.html > for the FAQ about pypy in general. > > Laura Creighton > > _______________________________________________ > Advocacy mailing list > Advocacy at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy > From nico at tekNico.net Fri Oct 12 09:30:33 2007 From: nico at tekNico.net (Nicola Larosa) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:30:33 +0200 Subject: [python-advocacy] The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470F2299.4000807@tekNico.net> Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote: > I've got a problem. Please, hear me out in case I've got it jumbled. > Then feel free to criticize my understanding of things -- I declare > Crocker's rules. Who's Crocker? What rules? :-) > If I'm happy to constrain my > widget set, I can use some javascript toolkits to hide away the > javascript to some extent, but certainly for my purposes, and probably > for all purposes, I just know I'll be up to my elboys in javascript in > no time. Yes, RIA applications pretty much entail Javascript expertise nowadays. But Javascript is becoming more and more Pythonic: :-) > I could try swigging mozilla and interacting with the browser directly, > but this is a jungle of old documentation and is clearly not a > well-supported process. There is (was?) work going on to embed Python in Mozilla, but nothing usable. However, you can use PyXPCOM . > The premier web toolkits like GWT and YUT appear to be totally > Java-oriented. The Python equivalent of GWT would be Pyjamas . What's YUT? Did you mean YUI? In that case, I'll plug my favorite Javascript library: ExtJS . > There just doesn't seem to be a Python solution to a modern web > application. The best I can now imagine is a decoupled system with > Python on the backend. Something similar is Athena, part of Divmod Nevow . -- Nicola Larosa - http://www.tekNico.net/ Mozilla is leaning towards Python. Adoption of Python at Google is growing. Heck, the OLPC project picked Python. Ruby is getting all the press, but it seems that it's Python that people are really picking up. -- Aristotle Pagaltzis, May 2007 From fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk Fri Oct 12 11:00:27 2007 From: fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk (Michael Foord) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:00:27 +0100 Subject: [python-advocacy] The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470F37AB.9040208@voidspace.org.uk> Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote: > I've got a problem. Please, hear me out in case I've got it jumbled. > Then feel free to criticize my understanding of things -- I declare > Crocker's rules. > > There seems to be no Pythonic way to write web applications. There are > python web application frameworks, but these stacks still require a > lot of javascript expertise. It doesn't look as though I can write a > cross-platform RIA with Python, authored from a linux development > environment. > > I can write flex applications, but apollo isn't ready for linux yet. I > can write Moonlight applications, but the authoring process is poorly > documented, requires compilation of mozilla from source (!) and isn't > up-to-date with respect to Silverlight. If I'm happy to constrain my > widget set, I can use some javascript toolkits to hide away the > javascript to some extent, but certainly for my purposes, and probably > for all purposes, I just know I'll be up to my elboys in javascript in > no time. Silverlight 1.1 is very interesting, but is still ion alpha (comes with no prebuilt controls) and not ready for production use yet. Even when it is ready, whether it is worth using will depend on uptake. Being able to write Python code that runs in the browser is very nice though. Personally, If I'm writing a Javascript UI I'd rather be writing in Javascript than using code generation. Javascript is not bad as a language and there are some very nice toolkits out there (I've also had good experiences with ExtJS). Rails does seem to have a better integration with Javascript (for AJAX style applications) than Turbogears or Django at the moment though. All the best, Michael http://www.manning.com/foord From Cameron at phaseit.net Fri Oct 12 12:42:29 2007 From: Cameron at phaseit.net (Cameron Laird) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:42:29 +0000 Subject: [python-advocacy] The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <470F2299.4000807@tekNico.net> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> <470F2299.4000807@tekNico.net> Message-ID: <20071012104229.GA2775@lairds.us> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 09:30:33AM +0200, Nicola Larosa wrote: . . . > There is (was?) work going on to embed Python in Mozilla, but nothing > usable. However, you can use PyXPCOM . . . Is. Something considerably more impressive might well come of that work within the next year. From Cameron at phaseit.net Fri Oct 12 16:21:54 2007 From: Cameron at phaseit.net (Cameron Laird) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:21:54 +0000 Subject: [python-advocacy] The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071012142154.GA14849@lairds.us> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 02:12:08PM +1000, Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote: . . . > I've got a problem. Please, hear me out in case I've got it jumbled. Then > feel free to criticize my understanding of things -- I declare Crocker's > rules. > > There seems to be no Pythonic way to write web applications. There are > python web application frameworks, but these stacks still require a lot of > javascript expertise. It doesn't look as though I can write a cross-platform > RIA with Python, authored from a linux development environment. > > I can write flex applications, but apollo isn't ready for linux yet. I can > write Moonlight applications, but the authoring process is poorly > documented, requires compilation of mozilla from source (!) and isn't > up-to-date with respect to Silverlight. If I'm happy to constrain my widget > set, I can use some javascript toolkits to hide away the javascript to some > extent, but certainly for my purposes, and probably for all purposes, I just > know I'll be up to my elboys in javascript in no time. > > I could try swigging mozilla and interacting with the browser directly, but > this is a jungle of old documentation and is clearly not a well-supported > process. > > The premier web toolkits like GWT and YUT appear to be totally > Java-oriented. > > There just doesn't seem to be a Python solution to a modern web application. > The best I can now imagine is a decoupled system with Python on the backend. > Frankly, in this situation I don't see the point. The whole point of a web > application is to present a cross-platform user interface using a deployment > model which allows good control over the environment. It is, essentially, a > UI decision. To give up Python on the UI seems to be giving up the very core > of what it means to write a web app. > > Please, somebody, tell me I'm wrong! . . . This is a different way of thinking about RIA than I have; I recognize mine is rather old-fashioned, though ... What languages do you see as properly supporting development of modern Web applications? Java? Surely not Ruby ... From mtobis at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 16:29:28 2007 From: mtobis at gmail.com (Michael Tobis) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:29:28 -0500 Subject: [python-advocacy] The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <20071012142154.GA14849@lairds.us> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> <20071012142154.GA14849@lairds.us> Message-ID: There's Massimo di Piero's gluon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBjja6N6IYk mt On 10/12/07, Cameron Laird wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 02:12:08PM +1000, Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote: > . > . > . > > I've got a problem. Please, hear me out in case I've got it jumbled. Then > > feel free to criticize my understanding of things -- I declare Crocker's > > rules. > > > > There seems to be no Pythonic way to write web applications. There are > > python web application frameworks, but these stacks still require a lot of > > javascript expertise. It doesn't look as though I can write a cross-platform > > RIA with Python, authored from a linux development environment. > > > > I can write flex applications, but apollo isn't ready for linux yet. I can > > write Moonlight applications, but the authoring process is poorly > > documented, requires compilation of mozilla from source (!) and isn't > > up-to-date with respect to Silverlight. If I'm happy to constrain my widget > > set, I can use some javascript toolkits to hide away the javascript to some > > extent, but certainly for my purposes, and probably for all purposes, I just > > know I'll be up to my elboys in javascript in no time. > > > > I could try swigging mozilla and interacting with the browser directly, but > > this is a jungle of old documentation and is clearly not a well-supported > > process. > > > > The premier web toolkits like GWT and YUT appear to be totally > > Java-oriented. > > > > There just doesn't seem to be a Python solution to a modern web application. > > The best I can now imagine is a decoupled system with Python on the backend. > > Frankly, in this situation I don't see the point. The whole point of a web > > application is to present a cross-platform user interface using a deployment > > model which allows good control over the environment. It is, essentially, a > > UI decision. To give up Python on the UI seems to be giving up the very core > > of what it means to write a web app. > > > > Please, somebody, tell me I'm wrong! > . > . > . > This is a different way of thinking about RIA than I have; > I recognize mine is rather old-fashioned, though ... What > languages do you see as properly supporting development of > modern Web applications? Java? Surely not Ruby ... > _______________________________________________ > Advocacy mailing list > Advocacy at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy > From aahz at pythoncraft.com Fri Oct 12 18:17:06 2007 From: aahz at pythoncraft.com (Aahz) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:17:06 -0700 Subject: [python-advocacy] The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071012161705.GA10007@panix.com> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007, Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote: > > There seems to be no Pythonic way to write web applications. There > are python web application frameworks, but these stacks still require > a lot of javascript expertise. It doesn't look as though I can write > a cross-platform RIA with Python, authored from a linux development > environment. What's RIA? [...Google a bit...] Oh, I see. [*] I think it's a bit hysterical to equate web applications with RIA. Obviously, my feelings on the subject are likely to be a bit stronger than other people's because my primary browser doesn't support JavaScript and RIA just plain pisses me off. Why are you equating web applications with RIA? [*] To save other people the trouble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Internet_application -- Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ The best way to get information on Usenet is not to ask a question, but to post the wrong information. From paul at boddie.org.uk Sat Oct 13 19:44:18 2007 From: paul at boddie.org.uk (Paul Boddie) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:44:18 +0200 Subject: [python-advocacy] The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200710131944.18450.paul@boddie.org.uk> On Friday 12 October 2007 06:12:08 Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote: > I've got a problem. Please, hear me out in case I've got it jumbled. Then > feel free to criticize my understanding of things -- I declare Crocker's > rules. > > There seems to be no Pythonic way to write web applications. And the nominations for sweeping statement of the year go to... ;-) > There are python web application frameworks, but these stacks still require > a lot of javascript expertise. It doesn't look as though I can write a > cross-platform RIA with Python, authored from a linux development > environment. I guess what you mean is that the Python Web application frameworks which support "AJAX" or "Web 2.0" functionality require the developer to learn some JavaScript library. That may be true for some of them, but certainly not all, as Jurgen points out. Indeed, if I could only get round to enhancing my own Web application framework slightly, it'd support something like KSS instead of the developer having to write the occasional event handler in JavaScript; then they wouldn't even need to know how to write a simple function call in JavaScript. Anyway, I'm not really a believer in filling Web pages with JavaScript for fancy desktop application-like behaviour which either doesn't work properly in 80% of browsers (and it's a different 80% every time) or which cause the whole application not to work at all since the user turned JavaScript off: a legitimate choice given the continual stream of cross-site scripting exploits or implementation issues. See Google Picasa for an AJAX-laden example of an application which doesn't seem to work satisfactorily in any browser. > I can write flex applications, but apollo isn't ready for linux yet. I can > write Moonlight applications, but the authoring process is poorly > documented, requires compilation of mozilla from source (!) and isn't > up-to-date with respect to Silverlight. If I'm happy to constrain my widget > set, I can use some javascript toolkits to hide away the javascript to some > extent, but certainly for my purposes, and probably for all purposes, I > just know I'll be up to my elboys in javascript in no time. You could possibly write XUL-based applications together with PyXPCOM, but the effort involved in building a capable browser still seems to be significant. Still, it's arguably better than mixing in Mono as well. One day I'll return to the task of making KHTML/WebKit work with Python - another thing which has proven to be awkward over time. > I could try swigging mozilla and interacting with the browser directly, but > this is a jungle of old documentation and is clearly not a well-supported > process. Yes, most wrappers around Mozilla or Gecko don't touch the internal stuff like the DOM. > The premier web toolkits like GWT and YUT appear to be totally > Java-oriented. And aren't they still fairly proprietary? > There just doesn't seem to be a Python solution to a modern web > application. The best I can now imagine is a decoupled system with Python > on the backend. Frankly, in this situation I don't see the point. The whole > point of a web application is to present a cross-platform user interface > using a deployment model which allows good control over the environment. It > is, essentially, a UI decision. To give up Python on the UI seems to be > giving up the very core of what it means to write a web app. > > Please, somebody, tell me I'm wrong! You're wrong! ;-) My view, already regarded as extreme by the "users must have JavaScript switched on to use this application" [1] is that the AJAX stuff should provide extra interactivity over and above the rest of the application. Now you could always go and write a load of JavaScript code to provide this extra level of comfort (or special effects), but then you've got to make sure that it remains consistent with the rest of the application, that it doesn't provide the only way for users to achieve certain things, and so on. You could write this stuff in Python and have it translated to JavaScript, too, but in the end you have a maintenance problem if the additional stuff has significant amounts of custom logic. In the end, we return to the observation that the logic should be in one place and that we make the "view" part of the architecture capable enough to provide a nice interface without the temptation to write our application in the Web page templates, PHP-style. In attempting to reinvent traditional GUI programming this observation has obviously been forgotten. Paul P.S. Isn't this really a Web-SIG discussion? [1] http://blog.ianbicking.org/on-form-libraries-comment-17.html From paul at boddie.org.uk Sat Oct 13 19:44:18 2007 From: paul at boddie.org.uk (Paul Boddie) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:44:18 +0200 Subject: [python-advocacy] The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200710131944.18450.paul@boddie.org.uk> On Friday 12 October 2007 06:12:08 Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote: > I've got a problem. Please, hear me out in case I've got it jumbled. Then > feel free to criticize my understanding of things -- I declare Crocker's > rules. > > There seems to be no Pythonic way to write web applications. And the nominations for sweeping statement of the year go to... ;-) > There are python web application frameworks, but these stacks still require > a lot of javascript expertise. It doesn't look as though I can write a > cross-platform RIA with Python, authored from a linux development > environment. I guess what you mean is that the Python Web application frameworks which support "AJAX" or "Web 2.0" functionality require the developer to learn some JavaScript library. That may be true for some of them, but certainly not all, as Jurgen points out. Indeed, if I could only get round to enhancing my own Web application framework slightly, it'd support something like KSS instead of the developer having to write the occasional event handler in JavaScript; then they wouldn't even need to know how to write a simple function call in JavaScript. Anyway, I'm not really a believer in filling Web pages with JavaScript for fancy desktop application-like behaviour which either doesn't work properly in 80% of browsers (and it's a different 80% every time) or which cause the whole application not to work at all since the user turned JavaScript off: a legitimate choice given the continual stream of cross-site scripting exploits or implementation issues. See Google Picasa for an AJAX-laden example of an application which doesn't seem to work satisfactorily in any browser. > I can write flex applications, but apollo isn't ready for linux yet. I can > write Moonlight applications, but the authoring process is poorly > documented, requires compilation of mozilla from source (!) and isn't > up-to-date with respect to Silverlight. If I'm happy to constrain my widget > set, I can use some javascript toolkits to hide away the javascript to some > extent, but certainly for my purposes, and probably for all purposes, I > just know I'll be up to my elboys in javascript in no time. You could possibly write XUL-based applications together with PyXPCOM, but the effort involved in building a capable browser still seems to be significant. Still, it's arguably better than mixing in Mono as well. One day I'll return to the task of making KHTML/WebKit work with Python - another thing which has proven to be awkward over time. > I could try swigging mozilla and interacting with the browser directly, but > this is a jungle of old documentation and is clearly not a well-supported > process. Yes, most wrappers around Mozilla or Gecko don't touch the internal stuff like the DOM. > The premier web toolkits like GWT and YUT appear to be totally > Java-oriented. And aren't they still fairly proprietary? > There just doesn't seem to be a Python solution to a modern web > application. The best I can now imagine is a decoupled system with Python > on the backend. Frankly, in this situation I don't see the point. The whole > point of a web application is to present a cross-platform user interface > using a deployment model which allows good control over the environment. It > is, essentially, a UI decision. To give up Python on the UI seems to be > giving up the very core of what it means to write a web app. > > Please, somebody, tell me I'm wrong! You're wrong! ;-) My view, already regarded as extreme by the "users must have JavaScript switched on to use this application" [1] is that the AJAX stuff should provide extra interactivity over and above the rest of the application. Now you could always go and write a load of JavaScript code to provide this extra level of comfort (or special effects), but then you've got to make sure that it remains consistent with the rest of the application, that it doesn't provide the only way for users to achieve certain things, and so on. You could write this stuff in Python and have it translated to JavaScript, too, but in the end you have a maintenance problem if the additional stuff has significant amounts of custom logic. In the end, we return to the observation that the logic should be in one place and that we make the "view" part of the architecture capable enough to provide a nice interface without the temptation to write our application in the Web page templates, PHP-style. In attempting to reinvent traditional GUI programming this observation has obviously been forgotten. Paul P.S. Isn't this really a Web-SIG discussion? [1] http://blog.ianbicking.org/on-form-libraries-comment-17.html From paul at boddie.org.uk Sat Oct 13 19:44:18 2007 From: paul at boddie.org.uk (Paul Boddie) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:44:18 +0200 Subject: [python-advocacy] The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200710131944.18450.paul@boddie.org.uk> On Friday 12 October 2007 06:12:08 Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote: > I've got a problem. Please, hear me out in case I've got it jumbled. Then > feel free to criticize my understanding of things -- I declare Crocker's > rules. > > There seems to be no Pythonic way to write web applications. And the nominations for sweeping statement of the year go to... ;-) > There are python web application frameworks, but these stacks still require > a lot of javascript expertise. It doesn't look as though I can write a > cross-platform RIA with Python, authored from a linux development > environment. I guess what you mean is that the Python Web application frameworks which support "AJAX" or "Web 2.0" functionality require the developer to learn some JavaScript library. That may be true for some of them, but certainly not all, as Jurgen points out. Indeed, if I could only get round to enhancing my own Web application framework slightly, it'd support something like KSS instead of the developer having to write the occasional event handler in JavaScript; then they wouldn't even need to know how to write a simple function call in JavaScript. Anyway, I'm not really a believer in filling Web pages with JavaScript for fancy desktop application-like behaviour which either doesn't work properly in 80% of browsers (and it's a different 80% every time) or which cause the whole application not to work at all since the user turned JavaScript off: a legitimate choice given the continual stream of cross-site scripting exploits or implementation issues. See Google Picasa for an AJAX-laden example of an application which doesn't seem to work satisfactorily in any browser. > I can write flex applications, but apollo isn't ready for linux yet. I can > write Moonlight applications, but the authoring process is poorly > documented, requires compilation of mozilla from source (!) and isn't > up-to-date with respect to Silverlight. If I'm happy to constrain my widget > set, I can use some javascript toolkits to hide away the javascript to some > extent, but certainly for my purposes, and probably for all purposes, I > just know I'll be up to my elboys in javascript in no time. You could possibly write XUL-based applications together with PyXPCOM, but the effort involved in building a capable browser still seems to be significant. Still, it's arguably better than mixing in Mono as well. One day I'll return to the task of making KHTML/WebKit work with Python - another thing which has proven to be awkward over time. > I could try swigging mozilla and interacting with the browser directly, but > this is a jungle of old documentation and is clearly not a well-supported > process. Yes, most wrappers around Mozilla or Gecko don't touch the internal stuff like the DOM. > The premier web toolkits like GWT and YUT appear to be totally > Java-oriented. And aren't they still fairly proprietary? > There just doesn't seem to be a Python solution to a modern web > application. The best I can now imagine is a decoupled system with Python > on the backend. Frankly, in this situation I don't see the point. The whole > point of a web application is to present a cross-platform user interface > using a deployment model which allows good control over the environment. It > is, essentially, a UI decision. To give up Python on the UI seems to be > giving up the very core of what it means to write a web app. > > Please, somebody, tell me I'm wrong! You're wrong! ;-) My view, already regarded as extreme by the "users must have JavaScript switched on to use this application" [1] is that the AJAX stuff should provide extra interactivity over and above the rest of the application. Now you could always go and write a load of JavaScript code to provide this extra level of comfort (or special effects), but then you've got to make sure that it remains consistent with the rest of the application, that it doesn't provide the only way for users to achieve certain things, and so on. You could write this stuff in Python and have it translated to JavaScript, too, but in the end you have a maintenance problem if the additional stuff has significant amounts of custom logic. In the end, we return to the observation that the logic should be in one place and that we make the "view" part of the architecture capable enough to provide a nice interface without the temptation to write our application in the Web page templates, PHP-style. In attempting to reinvent traditional GUI programming this observation has obviously been forgotten. Paul P.S. Isn't this really a Web-SIG discussion? [1] http://blog.ianbicking.org/on-form-libraries-comment-17.html From paul at boddie.org.uk Sat Oct 13 19:44:18 2007 From: paul at boddie.org.uk (Paul Boddie) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:44:18 +0200 Subject: [python-advocacy] The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200710131944.18450.paul@boddie.org.uk> On Friday 12 October 2007 06:12:08 Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote: > I've got a problem. Please, hear me out in case I've got it jumbled. Then > feel free to criticize my understanding of things -- I declare Crocker's > rules. > > There seems to be no Pythonic way to write web applications. And the nominations for sweeping statement of the year go to... ;-) > There are python web application frameworks, but these stacks still require > a lot of javascript expertise. It doesn't look as though I can write a > cross-platform RIA with Python, authored from a linux development > environment. I guess what you mean is that the Python Web application frameworks which support "AJAX" or "Web 2.0" functionality require the developer to learn some JavaScript library. That may be true for some of them, but certainly not all, as Jurgen points out. Indeed, if I could only get round to enhancing my own Web application framework slightly, it'd support something like KSS instead of the developer having to write the occasional event handler in JavaScript; then they wouldn't even need to know how to write a simple function call in JavaScript. Anyway, I'm not really a believer in filling Web pages with JavaScript for fancy desktop application-like behaviour which either doesn't work properly in 80% of browsers (and it's a different 80% every time) or which cause the whole application not to work at all since the user turned JavaScript off: a legitimate choice given the continual stream of cross-site scripting exploits or implementation issues. See Google Picasa for an AJAX-laden example of an application which doesn't seem to work satisfactorily in any browser. > I can write flex applications, but apollo isn't ready for linux yet. I can > write Moonlight applications, but the authoring process is poorly > documented, requires compilation of mozilla from source (!) and isn't > up-to-date with respect to Silverlight. If I'm happy to constrain my widget > set, I can use some javascript toolkits to hide away the javascript to some > extent, but certainly for my purposes, and probably for all purposes, I > just know I'll be up to my elboys in javascript in no time. You could possibly write XUL-based applications together with PyXPCOM, but the effort involved in building a capable browser still seems to be significant. Still, it's arguably better than mixing in Mono as well. One day I'll return to the task of making KHTML/WebKit work with Python - another thing which has proven to be awkward over time. > I could try swigging mozilla and interacting with the browser directly, but > this is a jungle of old documentation and is clearly not a well-supported > process. Yes, most wrappers around Mozilla or Gecko don't touch the internal stuff like the DOM. > The premier web toolkits like GWT and YUT appear to be totally > Java-oriented. And aren't they still fairly proprietary? > There just doesn't seem to be a Python solution to a modern web > application. The best I can now imagine is a decoupled system with Python > on the backend. Frankly, in this situation I don't see the point. The whole > point of a web application is to present a cross-platform user interface > using a deployment model which allows good control over the environment. It > is, essentially, a UI decision. To give up Python on the UI seems to be > giving up the very core of what it means to write a web app. > > Please, somebody, tell me I'm wrong! You're wrong! ;-) My view, already regarded as extreme by the "users must have JavaScript switched on to use this application" [1] is that the AJAX stuff should provide extra interactivity over and above the rest of the application. Now you could always go and write a load of JavaScript code to provide this extra level of comfort (or special effects), but then you've got to make sure that it remains consistent with the rest of the application, that it doesn't provide the only way for users to achieve certain things, and so on. You could write this stuff in Python and have it translated to JavaScript, too, but in the end you have a maintenance problem if the additional stuff has significant amounts of custom logic. In the end, we return to the observation that the logic should be in one place and that we make the "view" part of the architecture capable enough to provide a nice interface without the temptation to write our application in the Web page templates, PHP-style. In attempting to reinvent traditional GUI programming this observation has obviously been forgotten. Paul P.S. Isn't this really a Web-SIG discussion? [1] http://blog.ianbicking.org/on-form-libraries-comment-17.html From paul at boddie.org.uk Sat Oct 13 19:44:18 2007 From: paul at boddie.org.uk (Paul Boddie) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:44:18 +0200 Subject: [python-advocacy] The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200710131944.18450.paul@boddie.org.uk> On Friday 12 October 2007 06:12:08 Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote: > I've got a problem. Please, hear me out in case I've got it jumbled. Then > feel free to criticize my understanding of things -- I declare Crocker's > rules. > > There seems to be no Pythonic way to write web applications. And the nominations for sweeping statement of the year go to... ;-) > There are python web application frameworks, but these stacks still require > a lot of javascript expertise. It doesn't look as though I can write a > cross-platform RIA with Python, authored from a linux development > environment. I guess what you mean is that the Python Web application frameworks which support "AJAX" or "Web 2.0" functionality require the developer to learn some JavaScript library. That may be true for some of them, but certainly not all, as Jurgen points out. Indeed, if I could only get round to enhancing my own Web application framework slightly, it'd support something like KSS instead of the developer having to write the occasional event handler in JavaScript; then they wouldn't even need to know how to write a simple function call in JavaScript. Anyway, I'm not really a believer in filling Web pages with JavaScript for fancy desktop application-like behaviour which either doesn't work properly in 80% of browsers (and it's a different 80% every time) or which cause the whole application not to work at all since the user turned JavaScript off: a legitimate choice given the continual stream of cross-site scripting exploits or implementation issues. See Google Picasa for an AJAX-laden example of an application which doesn't seem to work satisfactorily in any browser. > I can write flex applications, but apollo isn't ready for linux yet. I can > write Moonlight applications, but the authoring process is poorly > documented, requires compilation of mozilla from source (!) and isn't > up-to-date with respect to Silverlight. If I'm happy to constrain my widget > set, I can use some javascript toolkits to hide away the javascript to some > extent, but certainly for my purposes, and probably for all purposes, I > just know I'll be up to my elboys in javascript in no time. You could possibly write XUL-based applications together with PyXPCOM, but the effort involved in building a capable browser still seems to be significant. Still, it's arguably better than mixing in Mono as well. One day I'll return to the task of making KHTML/WebKit work with Python - another thing which has proven to be awkward over time. > I could try swigging mozilla and interacting with the browser directly, but > this is a jungle of old documentation and is clearly not a well-supported > process. Yes, most wrappers around Mozilla or Gecko don't touch the internal stuff like the DOM. > The premier web toolkits like GWT and YUT appear to be totally > Java-oriented. And aren't they still fairly proprietary? > There just doesn't seem to be a Python solution to a modern web > application. The best I can now imagine is a decoupled system with Python > on the backend. Frankly, in this situation I don't see the point. The whole > point of a web application is to present a cross-platform user interface > using a deployment model which allows good control over the environment. It > is, essentially, a UI decision. To give up Python on the UI seems to be > giving up the very core of what it means to write a web app. > > Please, somebody, tell me I'm wrong! You're wrong! ;-) My view, already regarded as extreme by the "users must have JavaScript switched on to use this application" [1] is that the AJAX stuff should provide extra interactivity over and above the rest of the application. Now you could always go and write a load of JavaScript code to provide this extra level of comfort (or special effects), but then you've got to make sure that it remains consistent with the rest of the application, that it doesn't provide the only way for users to achieve certain things, and so on. You could write this stuff in Python and have it translated to JavaScript, too, but in the end you have a maintenance problem if the additional stuff has significant amounts of custom logic. In the end, we return to the observation that the logic should be in one place and that we make the "view" part of the architecture capable enough to provide a nice interface without the temptation to write our application in the Web page templates, PHP-style. In attempting to reinvent traditional GUI programming this observation has obviously been forgotten. Paul P.S. Isn't this really a Web-SIG discussion? [1] http://blog.ianbicking.org/on-form-libraries-comment-17.html From fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk Sun Oct 14 15:18:49 2007 From: fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk (Michael Foord) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 14:18:49 +0100 Subject: [python-advocacy] [python] Re: The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <200710131944.18450.paul@boddie.org.uk> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> <200710131944.18450.paul@boddie.org.uk> Message-ID: <47121739.5090208@voidspace.org.uk> Paul Boddie wrote: > [snip..] > > My view, already regarded as extreme by the "users must have JavaScript > switched on to use this application" [1] is that the AJAX stuff should > provide extra interactivity over and above the rest of the application. Now > you could always go and write a load of JavaScript code to provide this extra > level of comfort (or special effects), but then you've got to make sure that > it remains consistent with the rest of the application, that it doesn't > provide the only way for users to achieve certain things, and so on. You > could write this stuff in Python and have it translated to JavaScript, too, > but in the end you have a maintenance problem if the additional stuff has > significant amounts of custom logic. > For all the Javascript scaremongering it can be used to create extremely intuitive and responsive web applications that stand head and shoulders above their predecessors. I'm afraid that users without Javascript are in an ever decreasing minority and despite there being plenty of horror stories the growth of powerful Javascript toolkits have led to a vastly 'richer' web. I still prefer writing Javascript than generating Javascript, but 'the competition' (notably Rails) is leading the way in integrated AJAX support in web frameworks. Hopefully that gap is already starting to close. Michael Foord http://www.manning.com/foord > In the end, we return to the observation that the logic should be in one place > and that we make the "view" part of the architecture capable enough to > provide a nice interface without the temptation to write our application in > the Web page templates, PHP-style. In attempting to reinvent traditional GUI > programming this observation has obviously been forgotten. > > Paul > > P.S. Isn't this really a Web-SIG discussion? > > [1] http://blog.ianbicking.org/on-form-libraries-comment-17.html > > _______________________________________________ > Advocacy mailing list > Advocacy at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy > > From paul at boddie.org.uk Sun Oct 14 17:14:55 2007 From: paul at boddie.org.uk (Paul Boddie) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:14:55 +0200 Subject: [python-advocacy] [python] Re: The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <47121739.5090208@voidspace.org.uk> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> <200710131944.18450.paul@boddie.org.uk> <47121739.5090208@voidspace.org.uk> Message-ID: <200710141714.55433.paul@boddie.org.uk> On Sunday 14 October 2007 15:18:49 Michael Foord wrote: > > For all the Javascript scaremongering it can be used to create extremely > intuitive and responsive web applications that stand head and shoulders > above their predecessors. That's true if the JavaScript actually works. For example, I've used Picasa on various browsers and it has been broken at some time on all of them (technically, that is - the terms and conditions are broken in other ways), although it seems to work for me today on some of the galleries I've previously failed to navigate. AJAX stuff can provide a nicer experience - I don't deny this - but nobody seems to question whether reproducing a desktop-like interface is desirable for stuff like e-commerce applications: people want to be able to press a button and have a dependable "old school" transaction occur when sending their credit card information or booking their tickets, not be left wondering whether some AJAX request has transmitted their details and either not bothered to update the display or failed silently with an error appearing in some log (assuming it were enabled). > I'm afraid that users without Javascript are in an ever decreasing > minority and despite there being plenty of horror stories the growth of > powerful Javascript toolkits have led to a vastly 'richer' web. The "richer" Web is all very well if it doesn't lead to... * One's browser crashing due to a flaw in the JavaScript implementation. * One's browser burning CPU at around 100% because some JavaScript is spinning in some loop or other, locking up the entire application (including all the other tabs). * The user pressing an obviously JavaScript-laden form button only to experience nothing as a result because the developers used some IE-only convenience properties on the document object. * Lots of Web pages requiring some proprietary plugin which works in one or two browsers on two or so platforms across one-and-a-half architectures. On the subject of "RIA", I've seen a lot of applications needing stuff like Flash where it's been totally unnecessary; the last one of any significance to me being an application where I had to select colours on a T-shirt design - something where some buttons or links on a Web page would have been adequate. > I still prefer writing Javascript than generating Javascript, but 'the > competition' (notably Rails) is leading the way in integrated AJAX > support in web frameworks. Hopefully that gap is already starting to close. It's totally possible to leverage various cross-browser JavaScript libraries, paying continuous attention to compatibility issues, and have some mostly reliable AJAX support in the browser. What I've done myself really only covers optimisations in the way forms are used, and I've tried to make those features fit into the same framework that non-AJAX interactions employ, so that the user can turn JavaScript off and everything still works. I don't aim to support all sorts of drag-and-drop stuff, but if I were aiming to do so it'd be done using generic code in the browser to support the concept, with integration to the server-side code through the established mechanisms for handling requests from the browser. From what I've seen of Rails' "AJAX helpers", whether they are the state of the art or otherwise, I can't see what they offer that something like Nevow didn't offer several years ago. If Python and its frameworks were really an innovating force in the RIA-like field, there'd not only be a focus on Python as a client-side language (as previously discussed), but also support for open standards such as SVG, if only for server-side applications to be able to manipulate such objects and render them for SVG-incapable browsers. Better support for less fashionable Web standards like WebDAV wouldn't exactly hurt, either. Paul From fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk Sun Oct 14 17:23:00 2007 From: fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk (Michael Foord) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:23:00 +0100 Subject: [python-advocacy] [python] Re: The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <200710141714.55433.paul@boddie.org.uk> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> <200710131944.18450.paul@boddie.org.uk> <47121739.5090208@voidspace.org.uk> <200710141714.55433.paul@boddie.org.uk> Message-ID: <47123454.1060403@voidspace.org.uk> In summary - I agree. :-) Javascript has the *potential* for creating a much richer and smoother web experience. Whether it does or not depends on how it is used... (I've seen plenty of places where it does work, as well as those where it doesn't of course.) Michael Paul Boddie wrote: > On Sunday 14 October 2007 15:18:49 Michael Foord wrote: > >> For all the Javascript scaremongering it can be used to create extremely >> intuitive and responsive web applications that stand head and shoulders >> above their predecessors. >> > > That's true if the JavaScript actually works. For example, I've used Picasa on > various browsers and it has been broken at some time on all of them > (technically, that is - the terms and conditions are broken in other ways), > although it seems to work for me today on some of the galleries I've > previously failed to navigate. AJAX stuff can provide a nicer experience - I > don't deny this - but nobody seems to question whether reproducing a > desktop-like interface is desirable for stuff like e-commerce applications: > people want to be able to press a button and have a dependable "old school" > transaction occur when sending their credit card information or booking their > tickets, not be left wondering whether some AJAX request has transmitted > their details and either not bothered to update the display or failed > silently with an error appearing in some log (assuming it were enabled). > > >> I'm afraid that users without Javascript are in an ever decreasing >> minority and despite there being plenty of horror stories the growth of >> powerful Javascript toolkits have led to a vastly 'richer' web. >> > > The "richer" Web is all very well if it doesn't lead to... > > * One's browser crashing due to a flaw in the JavaScript implementation. > * One's browser burning CPU at around 100% because some JavaScript is > spinning in some loop or other, locking up the entire application > (including all the other tabs). > * The user pressing an obviously JavaScript-laden form button only to > experience nothing as a result because the developers used some IE-only > convenience properties on the document object. > * Lots of Web pages requiring some proprietary plugin which works in one or > two browsers on two or so platforms across one-and-a-half architectures. > > On the subject of "RIA", I've seen a lot of applications needing stuff like > Flash where it's been totally unnecessary; the last one of any significance > to me being an application where I had to select colours on a T-shirt > design - something where some buttons or links on a Web page would have been > adequate. > > >> I still prefer writing Javascript than generating Javascript, but 'the >> competition' (notably Rails) is leading the way in integrated AJAX >> support in web frameworks. Hopefully that gap is already starting to close. >> > > It's totally possible to leverage various cross-browser JavaScript libraries, > paying continuous attention to compatibility issues, and have some mostly > reliable AJAX support in the browser. What I've done myself really only > covers optimisations in the way forms are used, and I've tried to make those > features fit into the same framework that non-AJAX interactions employ, so > that the user can turn JavaScript off and everything still works. I don't aim > to support all sorts of drag-and-drop stuff, but if I were aiming to do so > it'd be done using generic code in the browser to support the concept, with > integration to the server-side code through the established mechanisms for > handling requests from the browser. From what I've seen of Rails' "AJAX > helpers", whether they are the state of the art or otherwise, I can't see > what they offer that something like Nevow didn't offer several years ago. > > If Python and its frameworks were really an innovating force in the RIA-like > field, there'd not only be a focus on Python as a client-side language (as > previously discussed), but also support for open standards such as SVG, if > only for server-side applications to be able to manipulate such objects and > render them for SVG-incapable browsers. Better support for less fashionable > Web standards like WebDAV wouldn't exactly hurt, either. > > Paul > > From paul at boddie.org.uk Sun Oct 14 17:14:55 2007 From: paul at boddie.org.uk (Paul Boddie) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:14:55 +0200 Subject: [python-advocacy] [python] Re: The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <47121739.5090208@voidspace.org.uk> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> <200710131944.18450.paul@boddie.org.uk> <47121739.5090208@voidspace.org.uk> Message-ID: <200710141714.55433.paul@boddie.org.uk> On Sunday 14 October 2007 15:18:49 Michael Foord wrote: > > For all the Javascript scaremongering it can be used to create extremely > intuitive and responsive web applications that stand head and shoulders > above their predecessors. That's true if the JavaScript actually works. For example, I've used Picasa on various browsers and it has been broken at some time on all of them (technically, that is - the terms and conditions are broken in other ways), although it seems to work for me today on some of the galleries I've previously failed to navigate. AJAX stuff can provide a nicer experience - I don't deny this - but nobody seems to question whether reproducing a desktop-like interface is desirable for stuff like e-commerce applications: people want to be able to press a button and have a dependable "old school" transaction occur when sending their credit card information or booking their tickets, not be left wondering whether some AJAX request has transmitted their details and either not bothered to update the display or failed silently with an error appearing in some log (assuming it were enabled). > I'm afraid that users without Javascript are in an ever decreasing > minority and despite there being plenty of horror stories the growth of > powerful Javascript toolkits have led to a vastly 'richer' web. The "richer" Web is all very well if it doesn't lead to... * One's browser crashing due to a flaw in the JavaScript implementation. * One's browser burning CPU at around 100% because some JavaScript is spinning in some loop or other, locking up the entire application (including all the other tabs). * The user pressing an obviously JavaScript-laden form button only to experience nothing as a result because the developers used some IE-only convenience properties on the document object. * Lots of Web pages requiring some proprietary plugin which works in one or two browsers on two or so platforms across one-and-a-half architectures. On the subject of "RIA", I've seen a lot of applications needing stuff like Flash where it's been totally unnecessary; the last one of any significance to me being an application where I had to select colours on a T-shirt design - something where some buttons or links on a Web page would have been adequate. > I still prefer writing Javascript than generating Javascript, but 'the > competition' (notably Rails) is leading the way in integrated AJAX > support in web frameworks. Hopefully that gap is already starting to close. It's totally possible to leverage various cross-browser JavaScript libraries, paying continuous attention to compatibility issues, and have some mostly reliable AJAX support in the browser. What I've done myself really only covers optimisations in the way forms are used, and I've tried to make those features fit into the same framework that non-AJAX interactions employ, so that the user can turn JavaScript off and everything still works. I don't aim to support all sorts of drag-and-drop stuff, but if I were aiming to do so it'd be done using generic code in the browser to support the concept, with integration to the server-side code through the established mechanisms for handling requests from the browser. From what I've seen of Rails' "AJAX helpers", whether they are the state of the art or otherwise, I can't see what they offer that something like Nevow didn't offer several years ago. If Python and its frameworks were really an innovating force in the RIA-like field, there'd not only be a focus on Python as a client-side language (as previously discussed), but also support for open standards such as SVG, if only for server-side applications to be able to manipulate such objects and render them for SVG-incapable browsers. Better support for less fashionable Web standards like WebDAV wouldn't exactly hurt, either. Paul From paul at boddie.org.uk Sun Oct 14 17:14:55 2007 From: paul at boddie.org.uk (Paul Boddie) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:14:55 +0200 Subject: [python-advocacy] [python] Re: The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <47121739.5090208@voidspace.org.uk> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> <200710131944.18450.paul@boddie.org.uk> <47121739.5090208@voidspace.org.uk> Message-ID: <200710141714.55433.paul@boddie.org.uk> On Sunday 14 October 2007 15:18:49 Michael Foord wrote: > > For all the Javascript scaremongering it can be used to create extremely > intuitive and responsive web applications that stand head and shoulders > above their predecessors. That's true if the JavaScript actually works. For example, I've used Picasa on various browsers and it has been broken at some time on all of them (technically, that is - the terms and conditions are broken in other ways), although it seems to work for me today on some of the galleries I've previously failed to navigate. AJAX stuff can provide a nicer experience - I don't deny this - but nobody seems to question whether reproducing a desktop-like interface is desirable for stuff like e-commerce applications: people want to be able to press a button and have a dependable "old school" transaction occur when sending their credit card information or booking their tickets, not be left wondering whether some AJAX request has transmitted their details and either not bothered to update the display or failed silently with an error appearing in some log (assuming it were enabled). > I'm afraid that users without Javascript are in an ever decreasing > minority and despite there being plenty of horror stories the growth of > powerful Javascript toolkits have led to a vastly 'richer' web. The "richer" Web is all very well if it doesn't lead to... * One's browser crashing due to a flaw in the JavaScript implementation. * One's browser burning CPU at around 100% because some JavaScript is spinning in some loop or other, locking up the entire application (including all the other tabs). * The user pressing an obviously JavaScript-laden form button only to experience nothing as a result because the developers used some IE-only convenience properties on the document object. * Lots of Web pages requiring some proprietary plugin which works in one or two browsers on two or so platforms across one-and-a-half architectures. On the subject of "RIA", I've seen a lot of applications needing stuff like Flash where it's been totally unnecessary; the last one of any significance to me being an application where I had to select colours on a T-shirt design - something where some buttons or links on a Web page would have been adequate. > I still prefer writing Javascript than generating Javascript, but 'the > competition' (notably Rails) is leading the way in integrated AJAX > support in web frameworks. Hopefully that gap is already starting to close. It's totally possible to leverage various cross-browser JavaScript libraries, paying continuous attention to compatibility issues, and have some mostly reliable AJAX support in the browser. What I've done myself really only covers optimisations in the way forms are used, and I've tried to make those features fit into the same framework that non-AJAX interactions employ, so that the user can turn JavaScript off and everything still works. I don't aim to support all sorts of drag-and-drop stuff, but if I were aiming to do so it'd be done using generic code in the browser to support the concept, with integration to the server-side code through the established mechanisms for handling requests from the browser. From what I've seen of Rails' "AJAX helpers", whether they are the state of the art or otherwise, I can't see what they offer that something like Nevow didn't offer several years ago. If Python and its frameworks were really an innovating force in the RIA-like field, there'd not only be a focus on Python as a client-side language (as previously discussed), but also support for open standards such as SVG, if only for server-side applications to be able to manipulate such objects and render them for SVG-incapable browsers. Better support for less fashionable Web standards like WebDAV wouldn't exactly hurt, either. Paul From Cameron at phaseit.net Mon Oct 15 19:20:41 2007 From: Cameron at phaseit.net (Cameron Laird) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:20:41 +0000 Subject: [python-advocacy] The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <200710120525.l9C5PihS014128@theraft.openend.se> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> <200710120525.l9C5PihS014128@theraft.openend.se> Message-ID: <20071015172041.GA23648@lairds.us> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 07:25:44AM +0200, Laura Creighton wrote: . . . > If you look at pypy, we have an experimental javascript back end > which allows you to write your application in Python (or any of > the other suppoorted dynamic language frontends, such as Prolog) > and produce javascript which you can run in your browser. It is > still very experimental, and not ready to be used in production, > but I think it is what you are looking for. > > see: http://codespeak.net/pypy/dist/pypy/doc/js/whatis.html for > the javascript docs > http://play1.codespeak.net/ > for some demos to play with -- but Bub and Bros will only work if > the Bub-and-Bros server is up, which isn't often these days > and http://codespeak.net/pypy/dist/pypy/doc/faq.html > for the FAQ about pypy in general. . . . I'm always happy to repeat informed promotion of PyPy. Tennessee, are you familiar with Laszlo ? More broadly, you might like to read up on Seaside , Rebol , and Curl . In a different direction, Boo might suit you. From lists at janc.be Tue Oct 16 08:31:55 2007 From: lists at janc.be (Jan Claeys) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:31:55 +0200 Subject: [python-advocacy] [python] Re: The python way to write web applications In-Reply-To: <47121739.5090208@voidspace.org.uk> References: <43c8685c0710112112y4f6da14ag2daafedaf00517b8@mail.gmail.com> <200710131944.18450.paul@boddie.org.uk> <47121739.5090208@voidspace.org.uk> Message-ID: <1192516338.18207.166.camel@bedsa> Op zondag 14-10-2007 om 14:18 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Michael Foord: > For all the Javascript scaremongering it can be used to create > extremely intuitive and responsive web applications that stand head > and shoulders above their predecessors. Well, I just discovered that apparently one of the most-used "WYSIWYG" editors written in JavaScript uses non-documented & non-standard stuff, that has been removed from Gecko 1.9 (Firefox 3.x), resulting in all of the sites using it to fail (except, if you're lucky, sometimes it works if you _disable_ JavaScript). I won't be surprised if a lot of other "AJAX" stuff would have the same issues. > I'm afraid that users without Javascript are in an ever decreasing > minority and despite there being plenty of horror stories the growth > of powerful Javascript toolkits have led to a vastly 'richer' web. Actually, I see more and more people who use Firefox extension like NoScript. (But of course statistics derived from the logs of AJAX-heavy sites will show that most people have JavaScript enabled...) -- Jan Claeys From carl at personnelware.com Thu Oct 18 17:12:06 2007 From: carl at personnelware.com (Carl Karsten) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:12:06 -0500 Subject: [python-advocacy] user group presentation materials host Message-ID: <471777C6.1080600@personnelware.com> One of Chipy's speakers wants to put his presentation files somewhere. Is there some central place for this? Carl K From aahz at pythoncraft.com Thu Oct 18 17:57:04 2007 From: aahz at pythoncraft.com (Aahz) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:57:04 -0700 Subject: [python-advocacy] user group presentation materials host In-Reply-To: <471777C6.1080600@personnelware.com> References: <471777C6.1080600@personnelware.com> Message-ID: <20071018155704.GA20667@panix.com> On Thu, Oct 18, 2007, Carl Karsten wrote: > > One of Chipy's speakers wants to put his presentation files somewhere. > Is there some central place for this? Not really. Maybe starship.python.net -- we're gearing up to re-establish it as a central hosting point for the Python community. Alternatively, he can use a paid hosting service such as webfaction.com. If he's interested in being a guinea pig for the reborn Starship, have him send email to tismer at stackless.com -- Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ The best way to get information on Usenet is not to ask a question, but to post the wrong information. From goodger at python.org Thu Oct 18 18:06:35 2007 From: goodger at python.org (David Goodger) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:06:35 -0400 Subject: [python-advocacy] user group presentation materials host In-Reply-To: <471777C6.1080600@personnelware.com> References: <471777C6.1080600@personnelware.com> Message-ID: <4335d2c40710180906o1817830cyb2ef6803f9033bf7@mail.gmail.com> On 18/10/2007, Carl Karsten wrote: > One of Chipy's speakers wants to put his presentation files somewhere. > Is there some central place for this? There's http://www.scribd.com. Others reviewed here (mostly PowerPoint-specific): http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/08/upload-powerpoint-presentations-ppt.html -- David Goodger From amk at amk.ca Fri Oct 19 15:26:27 2007 From: amk at amk.ca (A.M. Kuchling) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:26:27 -0400 Subject: [python-advocacy] user group presentation materials host In-Reply-To: <471777C6.1080600@personnelware.com> References: <471777C6.1080600@personnelware.com> Message-ID: <20071019132627.GA8152@amk-desktop.matrixgroup.net> On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 10:12:06AM -0500, Carl Karsten wrote: > One of Chipy's speakers wants to put his presentation files somewhere. Is > there some central place for this? He could create a page in the Python wiki and attach his presentation files to the page. --amk From noah.gift at gmail.com Sat Oct 27 00:25:18 2007 From: noah.gift at gmail.com (Noah Gift) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:25:18 -0400 Subject: [python-advocacy] linked in group for Python Authors Message-ID: I started a linkedin group for Python Author's, which consists of: screencasting, articles, books, etc. Feel free to join, also if you feel this is better handled by an "official" member of the PSF, I am happy to turn the group over. I also do not know what logo to put. * * http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/38433/52CF3145575F* * Noah Gift -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/advocacy/attachments/20071026/10f6d603/attachment.htm