Prothon 0.1.2 is getting close to Alpha [Prothon]
mark at prothon.org
Sun Jul 11 03:07:11 CEST 2004
David MacQuigg wrote:
> Yes, I am very pleased by the changes in the last few months. The
> explicit binding syntax is excellent. That removes the objection I
> had to making the language classless. I also like the greatly
> simplified scope rules.
It is amazing how hard it was to come up with a consistent syntax that
allowed all that simplicity. It seems contradictory that it requires so
much hard work (and so much arguing) to create something simple.
Lately we have been working hard to add some complexity back in to it on top
of the simplicity. After all this we will have a class keyword and
Python-like directed method calls like you wanted!!! The new complexity
will be optional and only for people that want it. See:
> My big problem remains all the "non-language" defiencies - libraries,
> textbooks, support community, etc. For this to happen it has to be an
> easy jump for Python programmers. The benefits of removing a bunch of
> minor flaws in Python will have to exceed the cost of migration.
That will come with time. You have to have a good new language first before
you can expect people to help you add support to it.
> Maybe your approach is right -- go for the perfect syntax first, build
> a core of strong supporters, then in the second release decide how
> much compromise you are willing to make to bring in the larger Python
I don't plan on compromising. I think Prothon 1.0 will make 90% of users
happy the way it is, once support and libraries are available.
> Even at that point it will be easier for Prothon to make
> radical changes. And you won't have to waste time on arguments about
> whether something is syntactically impossible.
I'm hoping the users will be able to use Prothon the way it is and do
radical things with it. Time will tell.
More information about the Python-list