In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
.
.
.
>...though not a lot of forks/variations that have persisted past the
>early-alpha phase. Many of those projects are stale or defunct, alas.
>
>Personally, I'd point out Scheme as an "open" HLL with a vast number of
>implementations. But I guess it helps when the language itself is a
>spec and there's no canonical implementation.
>
>This all reminds me of one my favourite quotes from python-list of
>yore:
>
> <Thaddeus Olczyk> So python will fork if ActiveState starts
> polluting it?
>
> <Brian Quinlan> I find it more relevant to speculate on whether
> Python would fork if the merpeople start invading our cities
> riding on the backs of giant king crabs. [1]
.
.
.
Brian's wise observation on speculation--well, I, too, think it
deserves to be repeated.
Lisp was, in fact, the language I had in mind when thinking about
"multiple implementations". You are surely right to emphasize the
difference between "language as spec" and "language as implementa-
tion".
My own perspective is not to mourn the dormancy of, say, Vyper,
but to be intrigued by the serious use that continues to be made
of Jython, Stackless, and so on.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
