Sturla Molden <sturla.mol...@gmail.com> writes: > On 05/06/14 10:14, Alain Ketterlin wrote: > >> Type safety. > > Perhaps. Python has strong type safety.
Come on. [...] >>(And with it comes better performance ---read battery >> life--- and better static analysis tools, etc.) > > Perhaps, perhaps not. My experience is that only a small percentage of > the CPU time is spent in the Python interpreter. [...] Basically, you're saying that a major fraction of python programs is written in another language. An interesting argument... >> LLVM (an Apple-managed project) for the middle- and back-end, and a >> brand new front-end incorporating a decent type system (including >> optional types for instance). > > Numba uses LLVM. As far as I know, Numba deals only with primitive types. You will gain nothing for classes. (And Numba is a JIT.) > When I compile Cython modules I use LLVM on this computer. Cython is not Python, it is another language, with an incompatible syntax. >> Swift's memory management is similar to python's (ref. counting). Which >> makes me think that a subset of python with the same type safety would >> be an instant success. > > A Python with static typing would effectively be Cython :) I don't think so. The various proposals mentioned elsewhere in this thread give concrete examples of what static typing would look like in Python. -- Alain. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
