Python does not play well with others

[Paul Rubin]

Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam at benfinney.id.au> writes:
> > Since Python is being touted as good for web apps as a competitor to
> > PHP
> 
> Python is being touted as a good language for *many* purposes, not
> just web applications. Python is also a "competitor" to Java, to Ruby,
> to Perl, to many other languages. They all have strengths and
> weaknesses.

Yes but in the cases where Python's weakness compared with one of
those other languages is lack of library functionality, if Python can
remedy the weakness by incorporating similar functionality into its
library it should do so.

> That doesn't follow at all. Many consider the humungous function
> library of PHP to be a significant downside of the system, which
> criterion leaves Python ahead. More is not necessarily better.

I've never heard that as a PHP criticism, at least in any large scale
deployment, which is what a hosting service is.

> > I'm paying the hosting company for access to a computer that's
> > connected to electricity and to the internet and which has a
> > straightforward OS, language package, web server, and db installed.
> 
> In which case, there should be no problem with *you* installing
> whatever software you need to use the system for what you want.

No.  That would be colo or something similar , where I'm basically
paying for bare metal plus electricity and network, and I'm completely
in charge of the software.  Web hosting means the ISP is in charge of
all the software except for my application (i.e. they handle the OS,
language package, web server, and db, as described above).  So they
run (typically) Linux, MySQL, Apache, and PHP; and I get to upload my
own PHP apps and use the PHP library.  That's a lot less work for me
since I don't have to stay on top of kernel patches or firewall
configuration, and it's cheaper because they host a bazillion sites
(virtual hosts) in a a single server instance.

> > They shouldn't have to deal with dozens of interdependent modules
> > downloaded from different places just to support one language.
> 
> Either they are providing far more than the minimal set you describe
> above, or this is entirely outside their domain. Make up your mind.

No it's you who's got it wrong, I just described above what they're
doing.  Do you actually use any services like this?

> You can't claim both that the hosting company should have to maintain
> a comprehensive set of functionality, *and* that they should not have to.

They should get a distro that includes a lot of stuff, type "make",
and all the stuff becomes available to their users.