> I had hoped for the core of p3k to be built for scratch [...] Stop right there.
I used to think that was a good idea too, and was hoping to do exactly that (after retirement :). However, the more I think about it, the more I believe it would be throwing away too much valuable work. Please read this article by Joel Spolsky (if you're not yet in the habit of reading "Joel on Software", you're missing something): http://joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html Then tell me if you still want to start over. I expect that if we do piecemeal replacement of modules rather than starting from scratch we'll be more productive sooner with less effort. After all, the Python 3000 effort shouldn't be as pervasive as the Perl 6 design -- we're not redesigning the language from scratch, we're just tweaking (albeit allowing backwards incompatibilities). > * Possibly write in C++. > * Possibly replace bytecode with Forth style threaded code. > * Possibly toss ref counting in favor of some kind of GC. > * Consider ways to leverage multiple processor environments. > * Consider alternative ways to implement exception handling (long jumps, > etc, signals, etc.) > * Look at alternate ways of building, passing, and parsing function > arguments. > * Use b-trees instead of dictionaries (just kidding). The "just kidding" applies to the whole list, right? None of these strike me as good ideas, except for improvements to function argument passing. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
