On Jul 1 2013 7:08 PM, Matt Shaver wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 22:09:21 +0200
> Michael Haberler <mai...@mah.priv.at> wrote:
>
>>
>> Am 01.07.2013 um 16:20 schrieb EBo <e...@sandien.com>:
>
>> > hat raises a question though how deeply you want
>> > Python to get into LinuxCNC.
>>
>> No, it does not; a key/value pair-based API does not imply any
>> language.
>
> You did make the connection in your previous e-mail that:
>
> "the way I envisage it to be is to be rather pythonic than c-ish,
> namely using name/value pairs as arguments rather than say positional
> arguments"
>
> That's what EBo is referring to :)

yep.  I agree that we can use a specific languages features as 
inspirations to adsress a problem in any language, but I would like my 
question to still stand -- how much of this do we want to implement in 
python and how much in other languages?  I've started getting into some 
wicked cool python work at NASA-GSFC, and I can envision how one might 
write all but the most critical HRT parts of the code therein.  I am not 
advocating that as you generally take at least a 3x runtime hit from 
that of C/Fortran.  That being said, the multi-processing and regression 
testing tools are much easier to configure and use.  So, I am just 
trying to picture the minimal language boundary.

   EBo --

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Reply via email to