On 8/1/10 4:08 PM, candide wrote: > Python is an object oriented langage (OOL). The Python main > implementation is written in pure and "old" C90. Is it for historical > reasons?
Portability if nothing else has been a strong reason to keep the Python implementation to standard C. Its not as bad as it used to be, but there's still quite a few differences between various C++ compilers. Even with the officially supported platforms shrinking of late, and talk of including some C++ in an isolated part of the CPython implementation (the UnladenSwallow JIT is C++, IIRC), rewriting the whole thing in C++ seems like a major waste of time. If you went and used the OO-features of C++, but then you run into a problem: Python's OO design is strikingly different from C++'s. There's no enforced encapsulation (on purpose), just as one example. That's not saying you -couldn't- match Python's OO design on top of C++, after all-- they've done it in Java, which has a hardcore interpretation of OOP. But what does that get you over the current status quo? C's leaner and meaner then C++. > C is not an OOL and C++ strongly is. I wonder if it wouldn't be more > suitable to implement an OOL with another one. Wny would this be more suitable? The Python idea of Object Orientedness doesn't line up with the C++ own *on purpose*, so why adopt one idea and design of OOP to implement a different one? > Has it ever been planned to rewrite in C++ the historical implementation > (of course in an object oriented design) ? Have you actually looked at the "historical implementation"? It's actually quite object oriented. You don't have to have an object oriented language to use OO design. -- Stephen Hansen ... Also: Ixokai ... Mail: me+list/python (AT) ixokai (DOT) io ... Blog: http://meh.ixokai.io/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
