I don't see the point in attempting to choose a language/framework for the next decade. I would think that different languages and frameworks will be a natural fit for specific applications and perhaps the reason the author is struggling to make a decision is that he's attempting to make it based solely on the abstract rather than a concrete application.
I'm not the only one who'd like people to choose frameworks and languages on something other than gut feel and googlefight results, right?
I have a very concrete application in mind but want something that is versatile enough that I can go and do another application without having to go through the whole selection process again (and learn a bunch of new stuff on top of that).
Of course specialization is optimal but as soon as you have to make multiple things and your resources are limited then a general purpose tool is the better choice.
Compare it with hammers. If I only need to do metalworking I'd buy a bench hammer. But if I need to do metalworking and woodwork then a clawhammer is probably a better choice.
As for the selection process, this was just the preliminaries, it's far from over and the next step will be a lot more work.
I am not a lawyer but like the new no evil license clause Doug Crawford put on various packages this I'm not sure that "do what the fuck you want" is particularly meaningful in a legal context. You know people have been saying "don't roll your own crypto" lately?
Don't write your own license.
Don't write your own contracts.
Don't write your own legal documents.
There are plenty of solid, well written and unambiguous licenses out there that one can use to offer your users the same freedoms without the WTF.
> I am not a lawyer but like the new no evil license clause Doug Crawford put on various packages
That clause is a massive pain, particularly for Linux distributions. It makes the license no longer Open Source. Please do not propagate that license or clause any further.
I was skeptical of this as well; I had the FSF licensing team confirm that the WTFPL is a free software license a month or two ago. You can see it here:
> Our interpretation of this license is that it is
> intended to allow you to do whatever you want with the
> work. Therefore, we assume that this includes using,
> copying, modifying, and distributing modifications for any
> purpose.
He was, however, cautious to say "I can not conjecture how a court would
interpret that phrase" and recommended to consult a lawyer.
It's a sad world we live in if the rights you give for a software work are opt-in (you may do this and that) and not opt-out (you may not do this and that)
Being a Pythonista and working with Chef for the last year I think that this is makes some sense. We've been recently contemplating the same migration.
Of course, this case the number of servers being managed is low enough that there isn't really a going to be much of a performance difference between Chef or Salt so this is likely just the preference of the current maintainers.
Indeed. I'd expect increasing uptake in 2014. I think the current "Python 3 sucks" outburst is indeed a sign it's at a tipping point .. the usual ignore, denial, accept cycle.
PyPy has folks actively working on getting Py3k support. Check out their status updates on py3k and consider donating to the PyPy project to make this happen.
