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

[dman]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:33:43AM +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
| In article <83d6zuggfh.fsf at panacea.canonical.org>, 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've always thought that dynamic typing was what gave Python
| much of it's "flavor", so the phrase "statically-typed
| python-like" seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me.

The dynamic typing is a large part of what makes python python, but it
also contributes to making python->native compilation harder and
contributes to not having the performance potential that C has.  Thus
this new language wouldn't be an end-all language, just a replacement
for C (with python itself still preferred for high-level operations).

-D

-- 

Pride only breeds quarrels,
but wisdom is found in those who take advice.
        Proverbs 13:10