Willem Broekema wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: > > Does this count as a "children of a lesser Python"? > > This sounds like a quite derogatory first question.
I wouldn't take it that way: it's only a quote from an opinion piece about alternative Python implementations (albeit a contentious one). > CLPython is not a dead and abandoned project, nor is execution speed > its main goal, nor are Python semantics bended anywhere (it can run > the Pie-thon benchmark). Sure, some recently introduced language > features are missing, but with just a little effort that's solved... What would it take to get Python people more interested in it? I've been monitoring the site [1] and the mailing list [2] for some time, but nothing particularly visible seems to be happening. And wouldn't a more prominent announcement be the first step to some real publicity? I think it only got announced on comp.lang.lisp [3] with someone picking up on it in comp.lang.python. Perhaps getting it on the python.org front page would attract some attention, although I accept that a lot of Python developers would rather mess around writing C than writing Lisp. Anyway, I'm happy to hear that you're still working on CLPython. Paul P.S. Follow-ups set to comp.lang.python. [1] http://trac.common-lisp.net/clpython/ [2] http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/clpython-devel/ [3] http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/57ae88c5f9a59143 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
