On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 13:01 -0700, John Nagle wrote: > It may be time to standardize "RPython". > > There are at least three implementations of "RPython" variants - PyPy, > Shed Skin, and RPython for LLVM. The first two are up and running. > There's a theory paper on the subject: > > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.142.1457&rep=rep1&type=pdf > > All three have somewhat different restrictions: > > PyPy's Rpython: > http://codespeak.net/pypy/dist/pypy/doc/coding-guide.html > > Shed Skin: > file:///C:/Users/nagle/AppData/Local/Temp/shedskin-tutorial-0.3.html > > Rpython for LLVM: > http://code.google.com/p/rpython/ > > So a language standardization effort, independent of CPython, > would be useful.
A similar topic was recently discussed on the pypy-dev mailing list: http://codespeak.net/pipermail/pypy-dev/2010q3/006170.html My interpretation is that the pypy devs are -0 on such a standardisation effort, as it would give them less flexibility in moulding rpython for their specific needs. Adding features to rpython that make it better as a general-purpose programming language could actually make it *worse* as a specialised language for building pypy. OTOH, there does seem to be a growing interest in using rpython as a stand-alone language. I've used it for some small projects and it worked out great. But the intersection of (people who want rpython as a general-purpose language) and (people who have the ability to make that happen) seems to be approximately zero at the moment... Ryan -- Ryan Kelly http://www.rfk.id.au | This message is digitally signed. Please visit r...@rfk.id.au | http://www.rfk.id.au/ramblings/gpg/ for details
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
