Article on the future of Python
Ramchandra Apte
maniandram01 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 26 05:28:46 EDT 2012
On Tuesday, 25 September 2012 21:05:01 UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:26:19 -0400, Kevin Walzer wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9/25/12 4:15 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
> >> Hi all,
>
> >>
>
> >> I though this might be of interest.
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.ironfroggy.com/software/i-am-worried-about-the-future-of-
>
> >> python
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> > Interesting article, but the comments of those who say "the only
>
> > language I need to know is Python" strike me as a bit limited. If this
>
> > is the case, then Python can never be moved forward, because it is
>
> > written in C.
>
>
>
> Incorrect.
>
>
>
> IronPython in C#. Jython is written in Java. CLPython is written in Lisp.
>
> Berp and HoPe are written in Haskell. Nuitka is written in C++. Skulpt is
>
> written in Javascript. Vyper is written in Ocaml. PyPy is written in
>
> RPython.
>
>
>
> Some of those Python compilers are obsolete, unmaintained or
>
> experimental. Others are not. But either way, it is certainly not true
>
> that Python is written in C. One specific Python compiler happens to be
>
> written in C, that is all.
>
>
>
>
>
> > I program in Python, C, Objective C, JavaScript, Tcl, AppleScript, and
>
> > I'm learning Perl. Python could *not* handle all the domains I target in
>
> > my projects.
>
>
>
> Unless you are writing code that operates on the bare metal (device
>
> drivers, operating system kernels) Python probably *could*, even if it
>
> doesn't *yet*. PyPy now allows you to write real-time video processing
>
> filters in pure Python:
>
>
>
> http://morepypy.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/realtime-image-processing-in-python.html
>
>
>
>
>
> And if performance was irrelevant, you could even write an operating
>
> system in Python. A really slow, painful operating system, but still an
>
> operating system.
>
That's what I plan to do.
But it will be converted to C/C++
>
>
> Given a sufficiently smart compiler, and sufficiently powerful libraries,
>
> or sufficiently low expectations, pretty much any programming language
>
> can do anything any other language can do. Almost all of them are Turing
>
> complete.
>
>
>
> But of course, in practice languages differ in their power and
>
> capabilities.
>
>
>
>
>
> > For instance: if I want to access Mac-native functionality
>
> > via Tkinter that isn't currently available in the library,
>
>
>
> That "isn't currently available" part is precisely what I'm talking
>
> about. Just because it's not available now doesn't mean it can't be made
>
> available.
>
>
>
>
>
> > I can understand loving the language and wanting to work just in the
>
> > language, but it's another thing entirely to call Python the One
>
> > Language to Rule Them All. (That's C, because all other languages are
>
> > implemented in it. :-) )
>
>
>
> I see your smiley, but that is factually incorrect. Not all compilers or
>
> interpreters are written in C. Many languages are self-hosted, that is,
>
> they are written in themselves, using some clever bootstrapping
>
> techniques. C is neither the most powerful, the oldest, the best, or the
>
> most fundamental language around.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Steven
More information about the Python-list
mailing list