scripting language newbie - compatibility

[Alex Martelli]

"Cameron Laird" <claird at starbase.neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:CBB8F160627F5CD2.3A98528817818162.95361330218E820B at lp.airnews.net...
    [snip]
> >> I had a feeling that the Windows version of Python while being part of
the
> >> core was supported seperately in some way.
> >
> >No such thing, that I know of.  I've just downloaded the latest beta of
> >Python's new version (1.6b1), and the source tarball only comes in one
> >flavour; I've built it under Windows, but it uses just the same sources
as
    [snip]
> You're both right.
>
> Alex, the historical fact is that Mark Hammond
> and others did prodigious work to make WinPy as
> convenient as it currently is.  Certainly Python's

Good point, and I never wanted to disparage Mark's (and
other's) great contributions.  I'm a johnny-come-lately
to Python, and what I know is basically how it stands
today, not how much work it was to get it there nor who
exactly did what part of it.


> So, yes, the sources now support Win* just as
> well as any other OS.  That's only because of
> deliberate effort, though.

I never meant to imply that "it just happened by
itself", and I apologize to Mark and anybody else
I may have inadvertently offended by implying it
did (which I didn't mean to do, and don't think I
did, but if I left Cameron with this impression
then surely my expression was somewhat faulty).

I don't see how what may have happened years ago
(who spent what amount of work making things how
they are today) can possibly influence a choice
between scripting languages for any given task,
assuming the choice is to be taken today, but that
is not to disparage the importance of history for
other purposes, of course -- and "credit where
credit is due" is always important.


Alex