Why is python not written in C++ ?

Paul Rubin no.email at nospam.invalid
Tue Aug 3 00:27:25 CEST 2010

Michael Torrie <torriem at gmail.com> writes:
> Sometimes, C++ is just the right tool for the job, despite all its
> warts....  C++'s object semantics (guaranteed destruction, scoping,
> etc) can sometimes work very well when you need the speed of a
> compiled language, but don't want to be quite as low-level as C.
> In this case, C++ is certainly not a better tool for the job than C.

The stuff C++ adds to C is a mix of good and bad, and it's reasonably
possible to use just the good stuff and ignore the bad.  At that point
you've got a pure improvement over C, although a lot of C's shortcomings
can't be papered over and still remain.

Certain folks in the functional-programming community consider OO to be
a 1980's or 1990's approach that didn't work out, and that what it was
really trying to supply was polymorphism.  C++ programs these days
apparently tend to use template-based generics rather than objects and
inheritance for that purpose.  

I've never programmed in Ada but I'm intrigued by these articles:


I have the impression that Ada has an undeservedly bad rap because of
its early implementations and its origins in military bureaucracy.  I'd
certainly consider it as an alternative to C or C++ if I had to write a
big program in a traditional procedural language.

More information about the Python-list mailing list