Abelson and Python

markscottwright markscottwright at gmail.com
Thu Nov 23 12:32:45 CET 2006


Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> markscottwright wrote:
>
>  > If it were that easy, the PyPy guys would be done by now.
>
> if the PyPy guys had focused on writing a Python interpreter in Python,
> they'd been done by now.
>
> </F>

Isn't that the point of PyPy?  It's what their mission statement says
(http://codespeak.net/pypy/dist/pypy/doc/architecture.html#mission-statement):

"PyPy is an implementation of the Python programming language written
in Python itself, flexible and easy to experiment with."

This is something that is amazingly easy to do in scheme, since the
language is so simple, but is typically pretty difficult to do in other
languages.  I remember being blown away by how much I knew after
reaching the end of SICP - I wanted to go out and write my own scheme
compiler (and given the proliferation of scheme implementations, a lot
of other people must have felt the same way).  I don't remember getting
to the end of a book on python and thinking, "that's easy.  I could do
that!"

That said, I see now that the course we're talking about isn't the same
as the old 6.001 course, and presumably has different pedagogical goals.




More information about the Python-list mailing list