Announcing PyCs, a new Python-like language on .Net
carribeiro at gmail.com
Fri Sep 3 21:37:11 CEST 2004
I'm really not the best person to advise you, but don't you think that
keeping the name Prothon (or a simple variation) would be the best
thing to do? I know that PyCs is a totally new beast, but Prothon is
not actually being used form practical stuff (as far as I know). So
naming it Prothon+ or something like that may be just fine. Even
Prothon may make the cut -- after all, you're going to keep the
prototype concept, aren't you?
Just my thought on brand dillution.
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:10:09 -0700, Mark Hahn <mark at prothon.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:55:30 GMT, Lucas Raab wrote:
> > "Mark Hahn" <mark at prothon.org> wrote in message
> > news:1hhcev52r31j6.1nier31029dhk.dlg at 40tude.net...
> >> On 1 Sep 2004 06:33:57 -0700, Anand Pillai wrote:
> > [snip..]
> >>> o How does it differ from Mark Hammond's Python for .NET ?
> >> Totally different.
> > BUT HOW IS IT DIFFERENT??? You never answered the question.
> >>> o How does it differ from Jim Hugunin's IronPython ?
> >> IronPython is an implementation of the compatible current Python on .Net
> >> except for the libraries. PyCs is more like Python 3000 in that it is
> >> incompatible, with advanced Python features. The advanced features are
> >> from Prothon (mostly fixes of Python gotcha's) and from C-Omega.
> > So it's not like Python if it's incompatible.
> > [snip..]
> > Why not write a paper _clearly_ stating what makes Pyxc different from the
> > other Python .NET implementations?? I'm sure if you have a cleanly written
> > paper all of this mass confusion would not be necessary. Sorry, if this is a
> > flaming post, but nothing seems to be solid on what's going on.
> I have written about it at length. See http://pycs.org and our wiki which
> is linked there.
Consultoria em Projetos
mail: carribeiro at gmail.com
mail: carribeiro at yahoo.com
More information about the Python-list