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

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…

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

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…