On 2/16/21 10:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Attempts at a universal compiler stalled in the 1980s (though there may > have been some new developments since I stopped looking) because > expressing the semantics of different languages is so very hard. In > fact, much of the interest in pursuing the idea came from benefits that > would be derived simply from having a language's semantics formally > described. > > I don't think there is anything to see here. If the author had come up > with some new ways to tackle any of the problems, he would be telling> people > about these, not saying "be patient" (and bad-mouthing CPython).
Indeed, in all seriousness if he is successful, I look forward to reading his PhD dissertation, because it would be worthy of a PhD, especially if he made some breakthroughs in metacompiler design. His comments don't give me hope, though. Seems a bit paradoxical to me to, on the one hand, express a desire to build a Python implementation, but on the other hand, mock Python as a toy language. Why bother with Python at all? I wish him luck and maybe he'll eventually come back to the community with something to show and impress with. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
