Standardizing RPython - it's time.
ryan at rfk.id.au
Mon Oct 11 22:47:06 CEST 2010
On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 13:01 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
> It may be time to standardize "RPython".
> There are at least three implementations of "RPython" variants - PyPy,
> Shed Skin, and RPython for LLVM. The first two are up and running.
> There's a theory paper on the subject:
> All three have somewhat different restrictions:
> PyPy's Rpython:
> Shed Skin:
> Rpython for LLVM:
> So a language standardization effort, independent of CPython,
> would be useful.
A similar topic was recently discussed on the pypy-dev mailing list:
My interpretation is that the pypy devs are -0 on such a standardisation
effort, as it would give them less flexibility in moulding rpython for
their specific needs. Adding features to rpython that make it better as
a general-purpose programming language could actually make it *worse* as
a specialised language for building pypy.
OTOH, there does seem to be a growing interest in using rpython as a
stand-alone language. I've used it for some small projects and it
worked out great.
But the intersection of (people who want rpython as a general-purpose
language) and (people who have the ability to make that happen) seems to
be approximately zero at the moment...
http://www.rfk.id.au | This message is digitally signed. Please visit
ryan at rfk.id.au | http://www.rfk.id.au/ramblings/gpg/ for details
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Python-list