[Info-vax] Python on VMS

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Den 2019-01-18 kl. 03:32, skrev Dave Froble:
> On 1/17/2019 7:46 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 1/17/2019 4:57 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 1/17/2019 12:46 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 1/16/2019 1:21 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>>>> Saying that it is just as hard in Python as any other traditional
>>>>> language just shows the ignorance of the one claiming that.
>>>>
>>>> There are many other languages with good libraries.
>>>
>>> This is the issue.  Library routines can be implemented in many
>>> languages, even Cobol.  Perhaps what Python has done better is to
>>> gather together more library routines in a distribution package.
>>>
>>> I've got lots of library routines written in and for Basic, and am
>>> constantly adding to them.  Want Socket communications?  Want HTTP
>>> communications.  Got them.  Now, HTTPS is a bit of a OpenSSL issue,
>>> not a language issue.
>>>
>>> I doubt I'm unique in this.  Most likely there are plenty of shops who
>>> have helpful library routines.  Just most of us don't embrace the YAEL
>>> syndrome.
>>>
>>> I will admit that my libraries contain hundreds of tools, not the
>>> thousands I've seen claimed for such as Python.
>>
>> Most people just want to get their job done as fast and easy as
>> possible.
>>
>> It is much faster to use an existing good library than to develop
>> ones own library.
>>
>> If you need something done then Python would typically have a
>> library that can do it and it will typical be easy to use.
>>
>>>> I would not expect too much for RESTful web service calls in Cobol,
>>>> but Python is not the only one.
>>>
>>> Why not?  Perhaps talk to Richard?
>>
>> I believe he does that type of stuff in C#.
>>
>>>> But Python almost always have something and more important
>>>> something that is relative easy to use.
>>>>
>>>> Python is a language where one usually get positive
>>>> surprised if one need top get something done without
>>>> too much hassle.
>>>
>>> No, such products are for those who will not or can not develop their
>>> own.
>>
>> Or those that even though they could develop their own
>> don't want to waste their time doing something in a cumbersome
>> way when easier ways exist.
>>
>> Arne
> 
> Well, that depends ...
> 
> Sounds like an echo ...
> 
> If it's something to be done once, or a few times, then yes, tools already 
> available are great.
> 
> But what if performance is an issue, or the tools don't do 100% exactly 
> what you want?

A lot of "what ifs" here. How on earth could anyone outside of your
environment answer to that without knowing more about it?

> 
> We're running services that get beat on all day long.  Sometimes very 
> heavily.

Define "Heavily".

> Performance is a critical issue.  I'm thinking that if I cobbled 
> something together from off the shelf tools, I may not have the performance 
> to do the job.
> 

As I rememeber, you wrote tools all the way down to listening on the
IP ports, right? You would probably have got equal or better performance
by using a web server like WASD and "just" writing the server processes.
And on top on that, better tools for management, logging and fault tracing.