[OT] Compilable Python-like language?

Carl Banks imbosol at aerojockey.invalid
Sun Mar 21 05:18:25 CET 2004

Peter Hansen wrote:
> John Roth wrote:
>> Actually, I believe he did specify what he wanted it for. He said,
>> and I'm quoting from is message:
>> [quote]
> [snip quote]
>> [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?
> Yes, it is.  Compiling something is not only an ambiguous concept (Java 
> is compiled, but generally runs only on virtual machines and so does not 
> have some of the benefits of languages which are compiled to native 
> machine code), but does not have *inherent* benefits.

On an abstract level, this is true.  On a practical level, when
someone asks for, or refers to, a language that "compiles to binary"
(OP's exact words), we know what he's referring to.

> Without any idea whether Ed wanted improved *packaging*, or 
> *performance*, or something else (an academic exercise?), it isn't 
> possible to provide a useful answer.

I highly disagree.

If he's smart enough to decide that the type of language he asked for
is best for his needs, then a simple "yes, here it is" or "sorry,
there isn't" would be useful to him.

CARL BANKS                      http://www.aerojockey.com/software
"If you believe in yourself, drink your school, stay on drugs, and
don't do milk, you can get work." 
          -- Parody of Mr. T from a Robert Smigel Cartoon

More information about the Python-list mailing list