Python 2.0

[Michael P. Reilly]

Paul Prescod <paul at prescod.net> wrote:
: James Logajan wrote:
:> 
:> > I hate to say it but you can do some pretty neat stuff on Windows talking
:> > between languages without a bunch of custom glue code. Why is Unix so far
:> > behind in this regard?
:> 
:> Unix is behind? In what way? Last I checked, Unix was an OS that has evolved
:> to include useful things like threads, IPC mechanisms up the gazoo, dynamic
:> linking, and other handy stuff. Now if you meant to say that Unix
:> APPLICATIONS are behind, then you need to take your compliant to Unix app
:> writers. CORBA is available on Unix and if app writers don't use it, well,
:> what can I say?

: You _could_ say that Unix apps are behind in this regard and you can push
: application writers and OS vendors to fix it.

: Of course I wasn't talking about the Unix *Kernel* but I also wasn't just
: talking about Unix applications. What about "distributions" as they are
: now called? Does AIX itself with CORBA? Is it source-level compatible with
: CORBA on Solaris? Can I write a portable Unix app and depend on an ORB
: being available? App writers don't use CORBA so vendors don't always
: provide it. Vendors don't always provide it so app writers don't use it.
: Result: Unix is behind.

Your conclusion is based on one functionality, which you are incorrect
about.  UNIX has had IPCs for as long as Micros**t has been around (and
when it originally sold UNIX).  They are as powerful, if not more, than
COM systems, depending on how you use them.

Tooltalk and other middleware systems have existed on UNIX systems for
most of this decade, and many applications use them.  Tooltalk and
Softbench are the grandparents of everything you are stating makes the
Windows platform ahead of UNIX, and they are UNIX creations from before
Window NT existed.

I won't get into my thoughts on CORBA.

: When I can install a Linux distribution and use the same ORB to talk to
: Gnome apps, KDE apps, Netscape and Apache then I will feel that at least
: that variant of Unix will have caught up in this regard.

There are often better mechanisms in the systems than to use ORBs and
the like.  The applications usually use them.  It's not that UNIX is
"behind," it's that UNIX apps utilize the system.. just as Windows apps
utilize that system's components (and that the Windows systems isn't as
"open" as UNIX).

>From most of what I have worked with of all the M$ line (which is all
except Win98), those systems (OS and apps) are behind.  But this isn't
a troll.

Paul, you like Windows; we've all learned that.  But to state that UNIX
is behind simply because you believe that all apps should use one
functionality isn't going to make your point.

  -Arcege