On 10/04/2017 03:40, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 1:34:39 PM UTC-5, bartc wrote:
I have my own interpreted language which I call 'dynamic',
but compared with Python, code in it might as well be set
in concrete.
Is this a personal toy, or something that you can share a
link to?
It's a personal thing but not a toy. Some more info here:
https://github.com/bartg/langs/tree/master/qlang
Click on the 'Q Features' link, this includes a selection of built-in
features that have been easily and efficiently implemented
(enumerations, records etc) which Python seems to have trouble with.
(And it can't have simple enumerations such that cat=1, dog=2, but needs
to have every conceivable embellishment. In other words it doesn't know
how to keep things simple.)
(To actually run this, there still appears to be a file 'pcc.c' at the
top level of that github project. This is an old C version of the
interpreter (yes, just one file) and it seemed to work when I tried it
just now. You need a 32-bit C compiler. I had to remove a binary version
(for Windows) when someone said github doesn't allow binaries.)
For all the hype about GvR's "supposed" time machine, we can
see that Python has suffered some major design flaws. And
since Python3000, feature creep has been churning into
overdrive.
Yes. I suppose when it gets to a point where there are so many features
anyway, adding a few more makes little difference!
--
bartc
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
