Return to Answer

I tend to use Python for most things that aren't compute bound, i.e. they aren't restricted by how many computations you do per second. Some of the things I've used Python for are:

1. General scripts to manipulate images etc. with the [Python Imaging Library][1].
2. GUI frontends for command line applications using the [pexpect][2] module.
3. Mathematical modeling of microbial systems.
4. Bioinformatics.
5. Some web programming.

etc...

When the program/algorithm is compute bound, I use C together with Python and Ctypes. Does this fit your definition of general purpose? It's certainly useful for a wide variety of applications, but not suitable if the program needs to crunch numbers fast.

Stability: Python 2.5/2.6 is rock solid. Never had a crash that wasn't caused by self-stupidity.

Fast development: It's definitely worth it for me. For the most part, in the field where I work, programmer time is orders of magnitude more valuable than processor time. I'm quite happy to let a program run for hours if I can write it in a few days instead of a few weeks. [1]: http://www.pythonware.com/products/pil/ [2]: http://www.noah.org/wiki/Pexpect

I tend to use Python for most things that aren't compute bound, i.e. they aren't restricted by how many computations you do per second. Some of the things I've used Python for are:

1. General scripts to manipulate images etc. with the Python Imaging Library.
2. GUI frontends for command line applications using the pexpect module.
3. Mathematical modeling of microbial systems.
4. Bioinformatics.
5. Some web programming.

etc...

When the program/algorithm is compute bound, I use C together with Python and Ctypes. Does this fit your definition of general purpose? It's certainly useful for a wide variety of applications, but not suitable if the program needs to crunch numbers fast.

Stability: Python 2.5/2.6 is rock solid. Never had a crash that wasn't caused by self-stupidity.

Fast development: It's definitely worth it for me. For the most part, in the field where I work, programmer time is orders of magnitude more valuable than processor time. I'm quite happy to let a program run for hours if I can write it in a few days instead of a few weeks.

I tend to use Python for most things that aren't compute bound, i.e. they aren't restricted by how many computations you do per second. Some of the things I've used Python for are:

1. General scripts to manipulate images etc. with the Python Imaging Library.
2. GUI frontends for command line applications using the pexpect module.
3. Mathematical modeling of microbial systems.
4. Bioinformatics.
5. Some web programming.

etc...

When the program/algorithm is compute bound, I use C together with Python and Ctypes. Does this fit your definition of general purpose? It's certainly useful for a wide variety of applications, but not suitable if the program needs to crunch numbers fast.

I tend to use Python for most things that aren't compute bound, i.e. they aren't restricted by how many computations you do per second. Some of the things I've used Python for are:

1. General scripts to manipulate images etc. with the [Python Imaging Library][1].
2. GUI frontends for command line applications using the [pexpect][2] module.
3. Mathematical modeling of microbial systems.
4. Bioinformatics.
5. Some web programming.

etc...

When the program/algorithm is compute bound, I use C together with Python and Ctypes. Does this fit your definition of general purpose? It's certainly useful for a wide variety of applications, but not suitable if the program needs to crunch numbers fast.

Stability: Python 2.5/2.6 is rock solid. Never had a crash that wasn't caused by self-stupidity.

Fast development: It's definitely worth it for me. For the most part, in the field where I work, programmer time is orders of magnitude more valuable than processor time. I'm quite happy to let a program run for hours if I can write it in a few days instead of a few weeks. [1]: http://www.pythonware.com/products/pil/ [2]: http://www.noah.org/wiki/Pexpect