markscottwright wrote: > 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.... > > 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. > There are a more than a few library functions in the Python code that are written in C in CPython. Not only is PyPy trying to get the _entire_ Python system into Python, it is trying to do so in a friendly-to-translation-in-a-statically-typed-language way.
Besides, if you can freely use "eval" and "exec", how hard is a pure python language interpreter? --Scott David Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
