On Wed, 04 May 2011 14:22:38 -0500, harrismh777 <harrismh...@charter.net> wrote: : That statement is untrue; evidenced by the very fact the CPython's : complex and abstract data modeling has been very suitably handled by C.
That's an implementation. Not modelling. : You cannot possibly mean what you have asserted... I realize there : must be a contextual problem. I have been handling complex data : abstractions with C for more than 20 years... I did not say that it is impossible. On the other hand, you are clearly not talking about abstraction or modelling at all, but rather about computation or data processing. : its quite well suited to : the task... although, I am able to do my research today faster and with : less lines of code in CPython. That does not in any way impugn C..;. : quite the contrary, given enough time, C is better suited for modeling : on a von Neumann processor, period. What has that got to do with abstraction? : Here is the thing that everyone forgets... all we have to work with : is a von Neumann processor. (same as EDVAC, ENIAC, the VIC20, etc). : Assembler is still the best language on that processor. 'C' is still : the best high-level language on that processor. CPython is implemented : in C for a reason: gcc and the von Neumann processor make it a no-brainer. Again, what has that got to do with abstraction? : Its silly to claim that one high-level language or another is better : suited to complex data abstraction... don't go there. : : > Digging down into C should be unnecessary to explain Python. : : huh? You have to be kidding. Why do you suppose we want it to be : open-sourced? Python is a /language/. The /implementation/ is may be open-source (and may or may not be written in C). : Use the force Luke, read the source. If you really : want to know how Python is working you *must* dig down into the C code : which implements it. Except that whatever you learn by doing so is only valid for that one interpreter. -- :-- Hans Georg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
