On Mar 31, 11:26 pm, "Luis M. González" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mar 31, 8:38 am, Bjoern Schliessmann <usenet- > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mark Dufour wrote: > > > Shed Skin allows for translation of pure (unmodified), implicitly > > > statically typed Python programs into optimized C++, and hence, > > > ^^^^^> highly > > optimized machine language. > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > Wow, I bet all C++ compiler manufacturers would want you to work for > > them. > > > Regards, > > > Björn > > > -- > > BOFH excuse #23: > > > improperly oriented keyboard > > Mark has been doing an heroic job so far. > Shedskin is an impressive piece of software and, if pypy hadn't been > started some time ago, it should have gotten more attention from the > community. > I think he should be taken very seriously.
Indeed. The only serious problem from an acceptance point of view is that Mark tried to solve the more difficult problem first and hung on it. Instead of integrating a translator/compiler early with CPython, doing some factorization of Python module code into compilable and interpretable functions ( which can be quite rudimentary at first ) together with some automatically generated glue code and *always have a running system* with monotone benefit for all Python code he seemed to stem an impossible task, namely translating the whole Python to C++ and created therefore a "lesser Python". I do think this is now a well identified anti-pattern but nothing that can't be repaired in this case - from what I understand. However, speaking on my part, I don't make my hands dirty with C++ code unless I get paid *well* for it. This is like duplicating my job in my sparetime. No go. Otherwise it wouldn't be a big deal to do what is necessary here and even extend the system with perspective on Py3K annotations or other means to ship typed Python code into the compiler. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
