On 4/4/14 4:53 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Python is not a computer-science-ey language.
Really ?
> It is of little or no
> interest to computer scientists involved in the mathematics of
> computation,
... you mean no one except me, then ?
> or compiler-theory, or type-theory, or any of the other
> academic disciplines under comp-sci.
So, I understand as you say, that there are no academics using C
python interpreter within the rubric of their particular comp sci
discipline? none? anyplace?
I am surprised. They might be surprised as well.
You probably think the same is true of common lisp? then?
Under the covers there are some striking similarities between the
way lisp does things, and the way python does things. You know this, right?
The python interpreter is actually an excellent computer science
language (not only for education) because of its structure, data types,
flexibility, and extensibility. It is an excellent research language.
There seems to be a considerable difference of opinion as to 'what'
comprises computer science; very interesting. Not only is C python
interpreter an excellent research language, but the study of the Python
language itself is of major interest for anyone who studies languages in
general; ie., Lambda the Ultimate λ
marcus
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
