Re: Python or Perl for a Debian maintainance project?

[Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr>]

Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:

>> The description is very useful to the programmer. Much more useful than
>> a simple segmentation fault (I hope you don't run every binary under gdb
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> with debugging symbols enabled for day-to-day use). It is not very
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Of course not, I can extract a perfectly good stack trace from any
> core dump. It is not necessary to run binaries under gdb with
> debugging symbols enabled for this to work; why would it be?
>
>> useful to a clueless user, but this is a feature. An exception should
>> not be raised to the user.
>
> Well yeah, that's what we're talking about. What are you trying to
> say, again?

I'm not trying to say, I'm saying that a Python program that aborts due
to an exception is:
  1. buggy
  2. more useful than something that aborts with no stack trace or a C
     program that simply dumps core (or does not, depending on the
     _user's_ ulimit settings). The user just has to copy-paste the
     stack trace for the developper to be able to know where the bug
     came from.

Can you understand that?

[ In your speaking, it could be summed up like this:

    Python exceptions != shit
]

> Duh, because it's how you get perl to do the exact same thing (only
> with a description thrown in). So there really is no difference, and
> you're talking shit.

Which thing? Exceptions are built-in the Python interpreter. I need
nothing more.

-- 
Florent