If we want to be humorous, RPython would obviously either be written in R, which really is not designed well for such purposes, or would be some kind of synthesis that already exists that allows you to run R and python code interchangeably on sort of shared data that I sometimes do in RSTUDIO.
I like the way you think Greg. I did not consider how the ++ in C++ is a bit like stuttering and since python also starts with a P the effect would be something like C-p-p-python. My problem with that idea is, believe it or not, that it is too negative. What you meant to be seen as a dash is a minus sign to me. And both C and C++ not only have both a pre and post autoincrement variable using ++x and x++, they also have autodecrement operators using a minus sign such as --x and x-- and it can get pretty weird trying to figure out if some code is legal, let alone what it does, without parentheses. I mean what the heck does this do? y = x++-++x The truth is that although I remember Bjarne trying to figure out a good name for his somewhat improved language and his choice of C++ rather than D or some other gimmick, you could argue he also removed a bit from C. But who would call a language C-- ?? Back to serious. This discussion is more about names but is it? Some of the implementations of Python are not just written in some computer language but also in a sort of environment. Arguably some core of functionality has to be pretty much consistent to the language definition. But each may add interesting twists on its own and that can include the ability to easily link in code and libraries written in that language or used in that environment. You can have different supersets of a language. And it can impact where you might use the language as one reason people may not understand for using C is that a compiler was available for just about anywhere that either ran in that environment or could be run on another to produce lower-level code to copy to it. It was also possible to embed code in C that was evaluated differently in each environment for some level of fine-tuning. Some of that may eventually have been true for other implementations but I suspect not for some deliberately designed to fit what one party wants and with no care that it be shared elsewhere especially as the C version was already available there. Or am I wrong? After all, others who kept improving C thought the ++ concept was best removed! -----Original Message----- From: Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> To: python-list@python.org Sent: Tue, Jun 21, 2022 3:53 am Subject: Re: "CPython" On 21/06/22 2:56 pm, Paulo da Silva wrote: > Let's say they reimplement "reference python" CPython in Rust. What is > better? Change the "reference python" CPython name to RPython, for > example, or let it as CPython? The C implementation would still be called CPython, and the new implementation might be called RPython, or RustyPython, or whatever. The names are independent of which one is currently blessed as the reference implementation. Although if it were called RPython, no doubt a new debate would flare up over whether the "R" stands for "Rust" or "Reference"... -- Greg -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
