Python and Zope

[Ron Stephens]

Three points:

1. Python will work with .NET (see ActiveState's web site for Visual Python .NET
beta. So, any work you do now in Python will not be lost if you later convert to
the .NET runtime, in fact, Python will offer a fully compatible, more productive
development environment for .NET than any other language.

2. .NET is simply not ready *yet*, so I suspect it would be a little hard to do
your work right now in .NET. I agree with you that .NET looks promising and is
well thought out, but it is very early in the day to be committing a major
project to .NET, especially when the Python option is so inviting, both now
(fully mature development environment) and in the future (fully compatible .NET
language).

3. Zope works, is more powerful than any other option available at this time,
and because its written in Python, has a great future.

Cheers,

Ron Stephens



Ken Egervari wrote:

> I'm actually very used to the PHP interpreter as I've done a few large
> websites with it.  It's not powerful enough for my needs and I need to go to
> something with higher performance, scalability, cleanliness and just into a
> better multi-tiered, OO environment.  I know you can hack and do it in PHP -
> I'm looking for a nice framework that works that can help me deploy faster.
>
> Some I'm looking at:
> Java Enterprise (which I have previous experience in)
> .NET (i'm very impressed)
> Python and/or Zope
>
> Java doesn't look that great sinec I have to spend a lot more money on
> servers to get it running at the same performance as Python.  I'm not sure
> of the speeds that .NET provides.  I can't see it being ultra fast since the
> common language layer and the extra-added framework to make development
> easier will no-doubtedly slow it down.  Zope looked very interesting, but
> it's very akward to get used to structuring websites when you have been
> doing large frameworks for a long time in a traditional environment.
>
> Any help appreciated.
> Ken
>
> "Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams" <ignacio at openservices.net> wrote in message
> news:mailman.1000048100.22478.python-list at python.org...
> > On Sun, 9 Sep 2001, Oleg Broytmann wrote:
> >
> > >    Apache modules are just CGIs. Apache forks off a child at random, and
> at
> > > random kills children. On the other hand, web-application server is
> always
> > > in memory. This allows for the server to create persistence connection
> to a
> > > DB. How can you implement persistence connection in Apache module? Those
> > > "solutions" that are in mod_perl and mod_python are (in my not so humble
> > > opinion) just unstable hacks.
> >
> > Bzzt! Thank you for playing.
> >
> > I can't talk about mod_python or mod_perl, but mod_php's interpreter is
> not
> > CGI; it runs in Apache's memory space. Persistent connections are quite
> easy
> > to create (xxx_pconnect() instead of xxx_connect()).
> >
> > Also, Apache does not fork and kill children at random. A certain minimum
> > number of children are created at startup, more are created up to a
> maximum
> > number if necessary, and once a child has served a certain number of
> > connections, it is killed. This results in maximum stability because any
> > memory problems only have a limited amount of time to live.
> >
> > --
> > Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams  <ignacio at openservices.net>
> >
> >