comp.lang.python - 5 new messages in 2 topics - digest

comp.lang.python
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python?hl=en

comp.lang.python@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Shipping Executables - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/t/297a2754b1ad0538?hl=en
* Interesting talk on Python vs. Ruby and how he would like Python to have
just a bit more syntactic flexibility. - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/t/9a88c79d4043ba30?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Shipping Executables
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/t/297a2754b1ad0538?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 11:36 pm
From: Steven D'Aprano

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 02:00:59 -0500, geremy condra quoted Banibrata Dutta
<banibrata.dutta@gmail.com>:

>> BTW for people who are non-believers in something being worth stealing
>> needing protection, need to read about the Skype client.

Pardon me for breaking threading, but the original post has not come
through to my provider, only the reply from Geremy.

Many things are worth stealing and therefore need protection.

In any case, reverse engineering software is not theft. And even if it
were, keeping the source code secret is no barrier to a competent,
determined attacker or investigator. Skype is a good example: despite the
lack of source code and the secret protocol, analysts were able to
discover that TOM-Skype sends personally identifiable information,
encryption keys and private messages back to central servers.

In my personal opinion, releasing closed source software is prima facie
evidence that the software is or does something bad: leaking personal
information, infringing somebody else's copyright or patent, or just
being badly written. I'm not saying that every piece of closed source
software is like that, but when you hide the source, the burden of proof
is on you to prove that you're not hiding something unpleasant.

--
Steven

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 11:38 pm
From: Steve Holden

geremy condra wrote:
[...]
> I'd worry about developing a product worth stealing before I
> worried about people stealing it ;)
>
> Geremy Condra

+1 FAQ entry!

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
PyCon is coming! Atlanta, Feb 2010 http://us.pycon.org/
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/
UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 11:39 pm
From: Steve Holden

Philip Semanchuk wrote:
>
> On Feb 16, 2010, at 4:41 PM, rodmc wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been merrily programming away in Python now for a few years and
>> have a couple of applications I would like to possibly publish at some
>> point - with the exception of certain libraries they are more or less
>> 100% Python. However I have read elsewhere online that Python due to
>> it's architecture is not so good for this, especially as it is easier
>> for people to hack into the code. Also where software requires some
>> security aspects I guess it would also not be much use, is this
>> correct?
>
>
> Hi Rod,
> The user's ability to hack into the code is usually considered one of
> the strengths of Python & open source software in general. Since most
> Python software that's distributed is open source, you're doing
> something different than most. It'd help if you explain how you want
> your software to differ from a typical open source distribution. Do you
> not want people to change the code? Are you worried about your code &
> ideas being stolen?
>
Do remember, though, that the Python license absolutely allows you to
create both open source and proprietary products as you choose.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
PyCon is coming! Atlanta, Feb 2010 http://us.pycon.org/
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/
UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Interesting talk on Python vs. Ruby and how he would like Python to
have just a bit more syntactic flexibility.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/t/9a88c79d4043ba30?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 17 2010 12:02 am
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro

In message <60b1abce-4381-46ab-91ed-
f2ab2154c0a1@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:

> Also, lambda's are expressions, not statements ...

Is such a distinction Pythonic, or not? For example, does Python distinguish
between functions and procedures?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 17 2010 12:02 am
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro

In message
<8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517ce0@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Jonathan Gardner wrote:

> I used to think anonymous functions (AKA blocks, etc...) would be a
> nice feature for Python.
>
> Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming language
> with lots of anonymous functions. (I believe it was perl.)

Didn't it have source line numbers in it?

What more do you need?

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "comp.lang.python"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to comp.lang.python+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en