Python component model

[Kay Schluehr]

Hendrik van Rooyen wrote:
> "Fredrik Lundh" <fredrik at pythonware.com> wrote:
> > Nick Vatamaniuc wrote:
> >
> > > At the same time one could claim that Python already has certain
> > > policies that makes it seem as if it has a component model.
> 8<----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > implementing this using existing mechanisms is trivial (as the endless
> > stream of interface/component/adapter/trait implementations have shown
> > us); coming up with a good-enough-to-be-useful-for-enough-people
> > vocabulary is a lot harder.
>
> not sure if its trivial - but agree about the generality - my meat is your
> poison effect operating here -
> and also - standards are not per se a *Good Thing* - they stifle both
> inventiveness and diversity...
>
> - Hendrik

Culture matters. Some things exist below a certain level of visibility
and are quite evident for their practitioners but hardly recognized by
anyone else.

http://bitworking.org/news/Why_so_many_Python_web_frameworks

There is not even a name for this kind of "coherent diversity" and at
least Python doesn't brand it in any way. Maybe Pythons "obvious one
way to do it" credo is more harmfull to the community as a whole than
not having invented RoR. Python is ironically not proofed by hype which
always favours a cyclopic universe of a single true solution.