Prothon 0.1.2 is getting close to Alpha [Prothon]

Paul Rubin http
Thu Jul 8 08:59:47 CEST 2004

Peter Hansen <peter at> writes:
> > I meant it is designed to be industrial strength when it is
> > finished.  The architecture/foundation is built from the ground up
> > with that in mind.  I'm also making a bit of a comment that it
> > will be more industrial strength than Python.
> That claim interests me a lot.  I've found recent versions of
> Python to be *very* robust.  I'd trust them with almost anything
> at this point, more than I could say of most code in other
> languages I've used.  Why do you think you can improve on that,
> (or even be on par with it if you're writing the interpreter
> from scratch)?

Python has all kinds of annoying little limitations and misfeatures
that make me think an "industrial strength" version could do some
things differently.  Yes, you can write reasonably reliable programs
in Python if you're careful about the different traps, but maybe
Python tries to accomplish too many things at once.  So it will be
interesting to see how Prothon comes along.

More information about the Python-list mailing list