The best platform and editor for Python

[Kay Schluehr]

On Jul 6, 12:13 am, Alex Popescu <the.mindstorm.mailingl... at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 5, 5:46 pm, "sjdevn... at yahoo.com" <sjdevn... at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Kay Schluehr wrote:
> > > On Jul 3, 8:12 pm, cla... at lairds.us (Cameron Laird) wrote:
>
> > > > Python is simply easier than C++; you might
> > > > well find that a debugger, for example, doesn't feel as essential
> > > > as it is for you with C++.
>
> > > That's what I love most about the Python community. Whenever there is
> > > just a non-standard, platform-dependent or crappy implementation of a
> > > feature you get told that you don't need it.
>
> > A fairly nice debugger is standard and built-in to the regular Python
> > distribution on all platforms.
>
> > But 95% of what a debugger is used for IME is getting a stack trace--
> > in Python (or Java or Ruby or most modern languages) you get that
> > automatically, and the debugger is nowhere near as useful as it is in
> > C or C++.
>
> I am a Python newbie, but unfortunately I don't agree with that. For
> me having a debugger helped understand very quickly the flow
> in the libraries for which otherwise I would have had to navigate
> through code (which once again is not always easy without a good IDE).

You don't have to be unfortune about it. As you see there is no
consensus. I don't even know how Java developers would respond to the
assertion that the debugger is halfway irrelevant because they can
read the stacktraces ( A real C programmer and real man can read core
dumps. So what? ) Java is often considered as Blub but it doesn't at
least deny progress in tool development of the last 20 years.

> But this is just a newbie opinion :-),

I don't think so. BTW if you want to take a glimpse on the future of
"dynamic" languages you might also checkout this paper:

http://lamp.epfl.ch/~mcdirmid/mcdirmid07live.pdf

Kay