Why winetools is utterly useless, once and for all.

[Joseph Garvin]

On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 17:22 -0500, Kuba Ober wrote:
> I was pretty serious when I said about Lisp. Once you get to know it, it's an 
> extremely agile and productive programming language that has way more power 
> than Python does.

Even if that statement were true (I seriously doubt you can qualify it
with any actual evidence), 'power' isn't the only concern in choosing a
programming language for a project. Python has excellent community
support, tons of third party modules, several mature IDEs, and most of
all is easier for a new programmer to pickup than any other language
I've tried.

I'm also curious how you think that Lisp can somehow more concisely
represent the logic for this app. I haven't looked at any GUI bindings
for Lisp, but if they look anything like the OCaml ones it's just going
to be a dump of imperative code, which mostly defeats the point of using
a functional language in the first place.

Python stole from Lisp what most people like about Lisp anyway.

>  Lisp might be considered more obscure, that's sure, but 
> that's due to people mostly being clueless (sorry, had to say that). For 
> example there's no Python implementation that I know of that would even 
> remotely compare (performance-wise) to Frantz Lisp, when running "dirty 
> first-cut" code.

The Python community pretty openly states that if performance is a major
concern for your project that Python is the wrong choice. You can code
part of your project in C (the performance critical parts) and the rest
in Python in some cases. If your app has a flat performance profile then
it's well known that Python isn't the best choice. Then again, no one is
going to use Lisp in that case either.

Bottom line -- this is a configurer. It's not run super often and what
it does isn't that computationally intensive anyway. Performance isn't a
concern.

> Making it C implies not using Qt*, and I just can't see why anyone would *not* 
> want to use Qt. I'm dead serious. It's probably the only framework right now 
> that has any future, besides .net offerings and whatever is available for 
> Java. Everything else (gtk, wxWidgets, . . .) simply has no support (compared 
> to Qt). It's stupid to use dead solutions.

Although I agree that Qt is the best choice, I'd have to disagree that
gtk is dead. wxWidgets will probably be around for some time too, if for
no other reason than that using Qt in C++ is a bit annoying because it
needlessly reinvents the wheel (there's a lot of overlap between Qt and
boost and even standard lib). It's the same reason gtkmm has more appeal
to some C++ coders than Qt.