exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On 10:23 pm, a...@pythoncraft.com wrote:
In article <4a998465$0$1637$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
John Nagle <na...@animats.com> wrote:
Personally, I consider Python to be a good language held back by
too-close ties to a naive interpreter implementation and the lack
of a formal standard for the language.
...
For my part, I will agree with John. I feel like Python's big
shortcomings stem from the areas he mentioned. They're related to each
other as well - the lack of a standard hampers the development of a less
naive interpreter (either one based on CPython or another one). It
doesn't completely prevent such development (obviously, as CPython
continues to undergo development, and there are a number of alternate
runtimes for Python-like languages), but there's clearly a cost
associated with the fact that in order to do this development, a lot of
time has to be spent figuring out what Python *is*. This is the kind of
thing that a standard would help with.
Right. Python is a moving target for developers of implementations other
than CPython. IronPython's production version is at Python 2.5, with a
beta at 2.6. Shed Skin is at 2.x and lacks the manpower to get to 3.x.
Psyco I'm not sure about, but it's 2.x. PyPy is at Python 2.5, but PyPy
is currently slower than CPython.
A solid Python 3 standard would give everyone a target to shoot for that
would be good for five years or so.
John Nagle
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
