Donn Cave wrote:
> I can say "Python can serve as a scripting language for some applications",
> but not "Python is a scripting language!"
bruno at modulix wrote:
> as soon as you say "interpreted, scripting", peoples think "not
> serious".
Cameron Laird wrote:
> I *think* you're proposing that,
> were Guido more knowledgeable, he would have created a Python
> language that's roughly as we know now, implemented it with
> FASTER software ... and "to its own detriment".
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> define "scripting language".
>
> the only even remotely formal definition I've ever seen is "language
> with designed to script an existing application, with limited support
> for handling
> its own state". Early Tcl and JavaScript are scripting languages,
> Python is not.
Kay Schluehr wrote:
> Yes, it's Guidos master-plan to lock programmers into a slow language
> in order to dominate them for decades.
Donn Cave wrote:
> All I'm saying is that Python matches
> what people think of as an interpreted language. You can deny it, but
> but it's going to look like you're playing games with words, and to no
> real end, since no one could possibly be deceived for very long.
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Describing C (or Lisp) as "compiled" and Python as "interpreted" is to
> paint with an extremely broad brush, both ignoring what actually
> happens in fact, and giving a false impression about Python. It is
> absolutely true to say that Python does not compile to machine code.
> (At least not yet.) But it is also absolutely true that Python is
> compiled. Why emphasise the interpreter, and therefore Python's
> similarity to bash, rather than the compiler and Python's similarity
> to (say) Java or Lisp?
Paul Boddie wrote:
> Yes, I think that with optional static typing, it's quite likely that
> we would see lots of unnecessary declarations and less reusable code
> ("ints everywhere, everyone!"), so I think the point about not
> providing people with certain features is a very interesting one,
> since
> people have had to make additional and not insignificant effort to
> optimise for speed. One potential benefit is that should better tools
> than optional static typing be considered and evaluated, the "ints
> everywhere!" line of thinking could prove to be something of a dead
> end
> in all but the most specialised applications. Consequently, the Python
> platform could end up better off, providing superior tools for
> optimising performance whilst not compromising the feel of the
> language
> and environment.
Torsten Bronger wrote:
> By the way, this is my main concern about optional static typing: It
> may change the target group, i.e. it may move Python closer to those
> applications where speed really matters, which again would have an
> effect on what will be considered Pythonic.
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> The "Python is both interpreted and compiled" camp, who
> believe that both steps are equally important, and to
> raise one over the other in importance is misleading.
> That's why Sun doesn't describe Java as interpreted,
> but as byte-code compiled. They did that before they
> had JIT compilers to compile to machine code.
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> It's not a "scripting" language, and it's not interpreted.
It will all be sorted out once and for all in Python 3000: The Reckoning
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
