Python does not play well with others

[Paul Rubin]

skip at pobox.com writes:
> iceberg.)  The Pylons, web.py, Karrigell, Webware and TurboGears people
> might (rightly) feel slighted if you include Django but not their
> frameworks.

Yeah well, the Wxpython, PyQt, PyGTK etc. people may feel slighted
that Tkinter got included and their stuff didn't, and the Eric,
Eclipse, Komodo etc. people may feel slighted that IDLE got included,
but that doesn't stop Tkinter and IDLE from being useful and worth
shipping in Python.  We were talking about db connectivity modules
which are quite a bit simpler than tkinter.  We were also talking
about an SSL wrapper, which *is* included with Python, but is broken
(doesn't examine certificates) so people use external modules instead,
which is just lame.

> Where would you stop?  At the boundaries of your particular application
> interests?

Basic competitive analysis.  People ask here all the time "I'm trying
to write application XYZ, should I use language L or should I use
Python" (L is usually Java or PHP but can be other things).  There's
always immediately a flood of responses about why Python is better
than language L for application XYZ.  If the Pythonistas are serious
about such a claim, competitive analysis says they should be willing
to look at what language L does to support application XYZ (example:
PHP includes database connectivity), make a checklist of L's features,
and see to it that Python achieves (at least) parity in those areas.