[OT] Compilable Python-like language?

[John Roth]

"Peter Hansen" <peter at engcorp.com> wrote in message
news:ctGdnYQQp4SWV8HdRVn-jg at powergate.ca...
> Carl Banks wrote:
>
> > Fran?ois Pinard wrote:
> >
> >>[Ed Cogburn]
> >>>I'm just curious if such a beast exists out there.  I've googled
> >>>around some and read some programming language websites but I have yet
> >>>to find a language similar to Python that can be compiled to binary.
> >>>[...] Is there such a thing?
> >>
> >>What is your real need?  Why do you consider important to compile
> >>something to an executable binary?  The goal is executing a program
> >>written in Python, or Python-like language, isn't it?
> >
> > I really don't think why he needs it is necessary to answer this
> > question: he stated what he wanted clearly enough.  And I would say
> > questioning his need for a complied language is quite presumptuous.
>
> Presumptuous?  Hardly.  It's a very valid question to ask.
>
> By asking for "a compiled language like Python", Ed is making the common
> mistake of specifying a solution without identifying what his
> requirements are.  We are simply trying to identify what his real needs
> are so that we can give him a useful answer, along the lines of, say,
> "use py2exe for easier packaging" if that were his goal.
>
> Also, although I don't think this is a problem Ed has, some people are
> confused about interpreted versus compiled and such things.  It's just
> possible that someone asking such a question has an incorrect
> understanding of how programs work, and thus asked a "wrong question"
> innocently.

Actually, I believe he did specify what he wanted it for. He said,
and I'm quoting from is message:

[quote]

I'm just curious if such a beast exists out there.  I've googled around some
and read some programming language websites but I have yet to find a
language
similar to Python that can be compiled to binary.  Have I been looking in
the
wrong places?  I certainly can't be the only person to want a Pythonish
language that can be compiled.  Even a language that just uses Python's
basic
syntax characteristics (no end-of-statement markers, use indentation to
denote
code blocks, less verbose syntax overall, etc) without the advanced dynamic
and OO features would still be interesting to me (indeed, it would really
have
to lose most of the dynamic characteristics in order to make it a compilable
language, which is why we don't have compile-to-binary Python, right?).  Is
there such a thing?

[end quote]

The key phrase here is

"just uses Python's basic
syntax characteristics (no end-of-statement markers, use indentation to
denote
code blocks, less verbose syntax overall, etc) without the advanced dynamic
and OO features would still be interesting to me"

I certainly think that is clear enough. He wants a compiled language
that has some of Python's ease of use features. Is that so hard to
understand?

John Roth
>
> -Peter