Python is just as good as C++ for real apps

[Alex Martelli]

"dman" <dsh8290 at rit.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.1012306314.12119.python-list at python.org...
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 07:16:18PM -0500, Kragen Sitaker wrote:
> | dman <dsh8290 at rit.edu> writes:
> | > On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 03:59:00AM +0000, one2001boy wrote:
> | > | C++ is for large-scale projects;
> | >
> | > No way :-).  Python is better for that!
> | >
> | > I'd like to see a statically-typed, compiled-to-native,
> | > raw-pointers-included, python-like language.
> |
> | How about OCaml?  Or what do you mean by "statically-typed python-like"?
>
> I mean something that has the low-level qualities of C (suitable for
> making a kernel, device driver, malloc/free, or performance critical
> sections of the program) but still looks like Python does (indentation
> for semantics, etc).  I don't have a very precise notion apart from
> replacing C as Python's complement.

An interesting notion.  What about a Python-syntax-flavoured version
of BCPL, see http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/clive-on-bcpl.html -- this
would allow us to keep the declaration-less nature of Python, although
the type semantics would be drastically different ("operator-typed",
which is a nice euphemism for "untyped", vs strongly dynamically
typed).  Drastically-different semantics is presumably a constraint
given your specs, anyway, so why not go for broke...


Alex