bearophile wrote: > Dave: >>It seems that bearophile basically wants a GP / systems language and tools >>that are nearly as productive as the likes of Python but can also produce >>blazingly fast code.< > > The things I like can't be summarized in few lines, but one of the things > I like more is the following. > > Developing ShedSkin (that translates implicitly statically typed Python > programs ==> C++) I have seen that it can exist a language that at the > same time has a short and very handy syntax and produces very fast > programs. The "good" thing is that it doesn't require big inventions, all > the necessary parts exists already, to it's not a revolution (some people > like revolutions, so this isn't for them). Languages like Genie, Delight, > ShedSkin, Vala, Boo, Cython, Rpython, etc (and OcaML too, probably), go in > this direction. The D language too (with the right libraries) can become > almost handy. > > The last two posts here show examples of what I mean: > http://leonardo-m.livejournal.com/72504.html > http://leonardo-m.livejournal.com/72754.html > > In both situations a ShedSkin program is both shorter/cleaner and quite > faster than the D ones (the speed increase generally comes from GCC > optimizing better than DMD).
It must be stated that "cleaner" is in the eye of the beholder - IMO Python does _not_ produce cleaner programs. It is harder to say how the implicitly statically typed stuff of ShedSkin affects mantainability, but I guess one could expect/hope for it to be better than normal Python. -- Lars Ivar Igesund blog at http://larsivi.net DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi Dancing the Tango
