prefer Python for new scripts?

Zhanna Tsitkova tsitkova at MIT.EDU
Fri Oct 30 01:47:10 EDT 2009

You have my vote, of course. 
Also, back in February, when I initially proposed Python for our testing framework, we discussed what version of Python should be used - 2.3, 2.5 2.6 or 3.0 - and the question is still open. I prefer 2.6+ and would not go below 2.5. 
Any strong preferences with regard to version choice?


From: krbdev-bounces at MIT.EDU [krbdev-bounces at MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Yu [tlyu at MIT.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:32 PM
To: krbdev at
Subject: prefer Python for new scripts?

I propose that we move toward preferring Python for new scripts in the
source tree.  Scripts in our tree are written in many languages,
including Python, Perl, Tcl/Expect, Bourne shell, and others.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that it is easier to write maintainable
Python code than maintainable Perl code, and that newcomers find
Python an easier language to learn than Perl.

I'm not suggesting that we rewrite all our scripts in Python, just
that we prefer it in the future.  Reasons to not choose Python for new
work would include extending existing scripts, etc. that are written
in another language.  For example, the Tcl/Expect/Dejagnu testing
frameworks we have are somewhat cumbersome, and I plan to replace them
with something more consolidated, but any modifications or extensions
to them should still be written in the currently used Tcl/Expect

I have looked at a Python-based testing framework called QMTest, which
appears somewhat promising, as a replacement for Dejagnu.  It hasn't
had a release since 2007, but this is not inherently a bad thing.

Please provide feedback on these suggestions.  Thanks.

Tom Yu
Development Team Leader
MIT Kerberos Consortium
krbdev mailing list             krbdev at

More information about the krbdev mailing list