Skip to main content

IronPython and a New Era

As many people have written about, IronPython 1.0 was recently released. There has been a lot said about it, and most interesting has been the response from many groups with little or no connection to the Python community. The fact that the language runs on .Net is more important than most Pythoners realize yet, and there is a predicted large number of future users of Python coming in from this new area of exploration. Many developers using C# or Visual Basic will be glad to move to a fun language like Python for at least part of their projects, and the integration with the CLR makes it flawless to mix with the rest of the components. It all reminds me of a line from Victor Vernado, the black albino comedian: its all the fun of dating a black man, without the disappointing look from your father. IronPython opens the door for a lot people who were unable to move into the community, due to personal or corporate barriers to leave the safety of the Microsoft Umbrella. IronPython is a bridge between two very strong and thriving camps of software development. It will be interesting to see who and what crosses this bridge and what new connections between these two arenas will rise.

I'm personally interested in IronPython for tapping some new ground in the commercial realm, but I won't speak of it much yet. I am also keen on seeing how well IronPython will work with and be succesful in areas like game development with the new XNA technologies, Mono on non-Windows machines, PyPy related compiling functionality, and Twisted on .Net platforms.

Its surely one hell of a Brave New World.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I've tried to port two apps to IronPython. Both projects crashed, due to the lack of support of various modules, both standard and 3rd party, written in C.
Fuzzyman said…
IronPython is good for new projects, but not much use for porting existing projects. :-)

Popular posts from this blog

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…