Python/cgi Was: Very useful message -- Hah!

[Jesse D. Sightler]

dgrassi wrote:
> 
> On 12/5/99 4:25 PM Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> >> There is a solution albeit rather nasty.  Fork python and add a few simple
> >> web-friendly features.  Is that the best solution?
> 
> >hmm.  python comes with over 200 support modules.  you
> >happen to think that one of them doesn't do what you want.
> >why not change that module instead?  you have the sources,
> >and I'm pretty sure you can figure out how it works without
> >too much effort.
> 
> It's python that needs to be changed.  Something simple like a keyword
> that tells it to put out a header for Apache.  That is the fork I
> mentioned above.

Hmm, either that or a PythonCGI shell script that wraps all results in a
HTTP header if Python returns a non-zero exit code.

> >if you're not up for the programming task, write a wishlist
> >and post it here.  chances are that you'll find someone
> >willing to help you implement the changes.
> 
> Well, I could probably do the programming including an upgrade to the
> pyApache code, but will it get rolled into the product?  I'm not against
> writing the code but all I keep hearing here is that things are fine as
> they are.  With that attitude what is the change that my changes would be
> accepted?

Who cares.  A simple shell script wrapper would be all that's needed. 
There's nothing at all wrong with that, and it would have ZERO impact on
"backwards compatibility".  :-)

> >or just keep using your own version until the end of days.
> 
> Can't do that, then I have non-standard code that I can't provide to
> others.

Er, no, you'll just have a non-standard script for your debugging
versions.  The distribution product won't have syntax errors, and will
therefore obviously have no need for such silliness.  :-)

> >maybe people don't think it's hard to use?   maybe you should
> >spend some of the effort trying to figure out how they do things,
> >instead of assuming that "if I don't understand it at once, it's use-
> >less"...
> 
> Perhaps it _is_ difficult to use for cgi.  Just possibly?

Or perhaps CGI is just difficult in and of itself.  I don't believe that
anyone ever occused CGI of being a great development environment for web
applications.

> Consider, no matter how many times you tell a person it is easy the
> telling does not actually make it easy.

Well, I can't disagree with that.  :-)

> >> I just don't get it.
> >
> >hint: don't assume that everyone is doing exactly the same
> >things as you are, in exactly the same way.
> 
> Hint, perhaps many do.  Do you think that there are 10x6 sites using
> python for the same function as php?  If not why?  

Because Python is a general purpose programming language.

PHP is a special purpose language for web-development.

>Is php a better
> language?  Has php been available longer?  If not these reasons _why_
> not?  Oh, perhaps one had better not try and answer this question.

Have you ever seen any client side applications written in PHP.  Or how
about any that use PHP/TK.  :-)

Seriously, why don't you quit comparing Apples and Oranges, and start
comparing Zopes and PHPs?
 
> But, wouldn't it be great if python _was_ as easy to use as php?

No, because then it would be useless as a client-side language.  That
would be truly sad.

-- 
---------------
Jesse D. Sightler
http://www.biddin.com/