Maybe flamebait .. see below.

The decision was made to use Python ( 1?) for whatever reasons
were articulated at the time.

Apparently there is an issue with backward compatibility
requiring rewriting of code. I don't know this first hand.

A more-or-less formal language definition
for the language, -- such that any correct program
conforming to that standard is guaranteed to perform 
in essentially the same way in all (future) implementations--
seems to be missing.

For some purposes, choosing to use a language without such a standard
definition is problematical.  

If there is no standard   ("a reference manual" is probably not
good enough.  A reference implementation -- eh, maybe ..)
then that counts against using that language.

If all programs written in Python have to be re-examined and
maybe rewritten every few years, that seems like a real bummer.

Is that really the case?  Or is it just Sage? What about all that
code written by Google?

If I misunderstand, then respond on SageFlame :)

Common Lisp was standardized in 1994 or so.  True, there are
some parts of computing relating to WWW and GUI and such
that are not included, and that's sometimes a problem. But
there are 50-year-old programs in Maxima. 

I think that if someone proposed a "new" CL standard, it would
have to be backward compatible.
RJF



On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-7, William wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 5:22 PM, rjf <fat...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> > And then, in a few years Python 4? 
> > Perhaps there is a lesson here? 
>
> Are don't understand what you're saying.  Is this flame bait?  I can't 
> tell. 
>
> William 
>
> -- 
> William (http://wstein.org) 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to