prefer Python for new scripts?

[Jeffrey Altman]

Using python permits you to use buildbot.

One of the challenges of using python is finding a version that works on
all of the platforms and applications that you require.  If you care
about Windows you have 32-bit support for just about any version from
2.4 through 3.0.  64-bit support on the other hand is only available for
2.6 and 3.0.   If I remember correctly some of the buildbot dependencies
require 2.5.

Jeffrey Altman


Zhanna Tsitkova wrote:
> 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?
> 
> Thanks,
> Zhanna
> 
>   
> ________________________________________
> 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 mit.edu
> 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
> language.
> 
> 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 mit.edu
> https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> krbdev mailing list             krbdev at mit.edu
> https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3368 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/krbdev/attachments/20091030/36f8e5b8/attachment.bin