Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In message i472rp$i4...@panix5.panix.com, Aahz wrote: Heck, I learned Ada as a sixteen-year-old knowing only BASIC and Pascal. Not so surprising, considering Ada was consciously modelled on Pascal. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In article i3ahdl$ce...@reader1.panix.com, Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid wrote: I also looked at Modula-3 once, and thought it had some real promise, but I think it's probably deader than Ada now. That's because you should be using Oberon instead. -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/ ...if I were on life-support, I'd rather have it run by a Gameboy than a Windows box. --Cliff Wells -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In article 7xeieevrze@ruckus.brouhaha.com, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote: I'm not sure what the hiring issue is. I think anyone skilled in C++ or Java can pick up Ada pretty easily. It's mostly a subset of C++ with different surface syntax. Heck, I learned Ada as a sixteen-year-old knowing only BASIC and Pascal. -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/ ...if I were on life-support, I'd rather have it run by a Gameboy than a Windows box. --Cliff Wells -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In message 44d30ac7-931e-4eb0-9aed-f664c872d...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, sturlamolden wrote: A C++ compiler can use Python's header files and link with Python's C API correctly. But it cannot compile Python's C source code. A C compiler is required to compile and build Python. Since when do you find a C++ compiler not accompanied by a C one? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 2010-08-14, Aahz a...@pythoncraft.com wrote: Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote: I'm not sure what the hiring issue is. I think anyone skilled in C++ or Java can pick up Ada pretty easily. It's mostly a subset of C++ with different surface syntax. Heck, I learned Ada as a sixteen-year-old knowing only BASIC and Pascal. Unfortunately, there just aren't that many Aahzes to hire (sixteen years old or otherwise), and of the non-Aahz progrommers out there it's shocking how many of them them are apparently incapable of learning a second language. Regardless of how easy something is to learn, management always wants to hire people who don't have to. -- Grant -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
sturlamolden wrote: On 11 Aug, 08:40, Ulrich Eckhardt eckha...@satorlaser.com wrote: Header (definition) and source (implementation) is not the same. I'm aware of this and that's not the thing I was talking about. Uli -- Sator Laser GmbH Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Martin v. Loewis wrote: Am 10.08.2010 09:06, schrieb Ulrich Eckhardt: When asked on the developers' list, it was said that this was intended for compatibility with C++, e.g. in cases where people want to embed Python into their C++ projects. Of course, this contradicts Christian's statement that C++ compatibility wasn't considered useful enough. It doesn't contradict at all. In order to embed Python into a C++ application, it is sufficient if the Python header files can be compiled with a C++ compiler, and linking to the C function works properly - which is indeed the case. That's true, maybe I don't remember the exact rationale. Especially if even someone like you, who is much deeper into Python development, doesn't, I'm wondering if I'm misremembering something Cheers! Uli -- Sator Laser GmbH Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 11 Aug, 08:40, Ulrich Eckhardt eckha...@satorlaser.com wrote: That's true, maybe I don't remember the exact rationale. Especially if even someone like you, who is much deeper into Python development, doesn't, I'm wondering if I'm misremembering something Header (definition) and source (implementation) is not the same. A C++ compiler can use Python's header files and link with Python's C API correctly. But it cannot compile Python's C source code. A C compiler is required to compile and build Python. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Carl Banks wrote: I highly doubt the Python source would build with a C++ compiler. As Christian showed, it doesn't. However, look around the sources a bit. There are lots of places where e.g. the returnvalue of malloc() (or, rather, the macro that resolves to something like it) is explicitly type-cast to the according pointer type. When asked on the developers' list, it was said that this was intended for compatibility with C++, e.g. in cases where people want to embed Python into their C++ projects. Of course, this contradicts Christian's statement that C++ compatibility wasn't considered useful enough. *shrug* Uli -- Sator Laser GmbH Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In message mailman.1863.1281378450.1673.python-l...@python.org, Christian Heimes wrote: There isn't really a point in cluttering the source with type casts. Makes you wonder why they bothered using a typed language at all. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Aug 10, 12:06 am, Ulrich Eckhardt eckha...@satorlaser.com wrote: Carl Banks wrote: I highly doubt the Python source would build with a C++ compiler. As Christian showed, it doesn't. However, look around the sources a bit. There are lots of places where e.g. the returnvalue of malloc() (or, rather, the macro that resolves to something like it) is explicitly type-cast to the according pointer type. When asked on the developers' list, it was said that this was intended for compatibility with C++, e.g. in cases where people want to embed Python into their C++ projects. Of course, this contradicts Christian's statement that C++ compatibility wasn't considered useful enough. I question why it needs to be compatible with C++ to be able to embed Python in a C++ project. How many C++ compilers out there don't come bundled with a C compiler? Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Am 10.08.2010 09:06, schrieb Ulrich Eckhardt: Carl Banks wrote: I highly doubt the Python source would build with a C++ compiler. As Christian showed, it doesn't. However, look around the sources a bit. There are lots of places where e.g. the returnvalue of malloc() (or, rather, the macro that resolves to something like it) is explicitly type-cast to the according pointer type. When asked on the developers' list, it was said that this was intended for compatibility with C++, e.g. in cases where people want to embed Python into their C++ projects. Of course, this contradicts Christian's statement that C++ compatibility wasn't considered useful enough. It doesn't contradict at all. In order to embed Python into a C++ application, it is sufficient if the Python header files can be compiled with a C++ compiler, and linking to the C function works properly - which is indeed the case. People integrate Python with C++ quite often, both for embedding it into C++, and for writing extension modules in C++. Regards, Martin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
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? The fact that Python is OOP doesn't mean that the implementation of it has to be written using an OOP language. Other than that, I'm actually surprised that nobody mentioned that Python actually _is_ written in C++. Yes, it's restricted to a subset thereof that is compatible to C, but you could also claim that it was written in a subset of C compatible to C++. :) Uli -- Sator Laser GmbH Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Aug 9, 6:39 am, Ulrich Eckhardt eckha...@satorlaser.com wrote: 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? The fact that Python is OOP doesn't mean that the implementation of it has to be written using an OOP language. Other than that, I'm actually surprised that nobody mentioned that Python actually _is_ written in C++. Yes, it's restricted to a subset thereof that is compatible to C, but you could also claim that it was written in a subset of C compatible to C++. :) I highly doubt the Python source would build with a C++ compiler. C++ is 'mostly' 'backwards' compatible with C insofar as you can pretty easily write C code that is also legal (and semantically equivalent) C++. But if you don't actively try to write code that is compatible with both languages, chances are the C code will invoke one of those 'minor' 'backwards' incompatibilies, the most common one being failure to cast a pointer. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
I highly doubt the Python source would build with a C++ compiler. C++ is 'mostly' 'backwards' compatible with C insofar as you can pretty easily write C code that is also legal (and semantically equivalent) C++. But if you don't actively try to write code that is compatible with both languages, chances are the C code will invoke one of those 'minor' 'backwards' incompatibilies, the most common one being failure to cast a pointer. Indeed: g++ -pthread -c -fno-strict-aliasing -g -O2 -DNDEBUG -g -fwrapv -O3 -Wall -I. -IInclude -I./Include -DPy_BUILD_CORE -o Parser/parsetok.o Parser/parsetok.c Parser/parsetok.c: In function 'node* parsetok(tok_state*, grammar*, int, perrdetail*, int*)': Parser/parsetok.c:251: error: invalid conversion from 'void*' to 'char*' make: *** [Parser/parsetok.o] Error 1 Beside from several invalid conversions Python could most probably be compiled with a g++ compiler. I once worked on a patch to fix the conversion issues but Martin argued against it. There isn't really a point in cluttering the source with type casts. Christian -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In message 8c4g22f5l...@mid.individual.net, Gregory Ewing wrote: FWIW, certain parts of the Darwin kernel are written in a carefully-selected subset of C++. So Apple evidently think that it makes sense to use some C++ in a Unix kernel under some circumstances. I wonder if that explains Apple’s well-known multitasking problems. :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In message l6segt@spenarnc.xs4all.nl, Albert van der Horst wrote: The bottom line is that to implement a programming language you want to use a simpler programming language, not a more complicated one. That would rule out ever using a language to implement itself. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: at one time there was an experiment to make the kernel compilable with a C++ compiler, without actually using any C++ features. The result: they lost about 10% in speed. That was enough to put the kernel developers off taking the experiment any further. FWIW, certain parts of the Darwin kernel are written in a carefully-selected subset of C++. So Apple evidently think that it makes sense to use some C++ in a Unix kernel under some circumstances. -- Greg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In article roy-30c94b.20362001082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote: In article 4c55fe82$0$9111$426a3...@news.free.fr, candide cand...@free.invalid wrote: Python is an object oriented langage (OOL). The Python main implementation is written in pure and old C90. Is it for historical reasons? 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. One thing that comes to mind is that it's much easier to distribute C libraries than C++ libraries. If I compile a main program with one C compiler and you compile a dynamically loaded library with another C compiler on the same box, the odds are pretty good they'll interoperate without any problems. Not at all so with C++ compilers. The linkage is *way* more complicated. Not just how the two compilers do name mangling, but how they handle exceptions, RVO, and a zillion other details. Pretty much the only way to make it work is to compile everything with exactly the same compiler. That would make it pretty close to impossible for people to take a Python core distribution and add their own extension modules to it. We had a similar discussion on comp.lang.forth. The bottom line is that to implement a programming language you want to use a simpler programming language, not a more complicated one. Then there is a secondary requirement, that language must allow sufficient access to low level features to allow decent performance. A third aspect is that Linux/Unices as well as Windows assume OS interaction in terms of c-libraries. Any intermediary is inconvenient at least. Or in one catch phrase: To implement a programming language you need a high level assembler like C. (We went on whether Forth would be a suitable high level assembler for Haskell. It would beat C++ -- not C -- for implementing Python, that much I'm sure.) Undoubtedly C is the right choice to implement Python. Groetjes Albert -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. alb...@spearc.xs4all.nl =n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In article roy-2fc4e0.19455005082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote: In article i3e43n$v7...@lust.ihug.co.nz, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote: In message roy-6bcfa7.22564104082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith wrote: C++, for all its flaws, had one powerful feature which made it very popular. It is a superset of C. Actually, it never was. Yes, there are a few corner cases where valid C syntax has different semantics in C and C++. But, they are very few. Calling C++ a superset of C is essentially correct. One aspect of C++ is that all standard functions of C are called in the same way. A large part of programs consists of stringing API calls together. Those require little work to upgrade to C++. So from a practical point of view this is very much true. It is certainly correct from the level of a risk-averse development manager deciding if he or she is willing to use C++ for the first time. Fear of the unknown is a powerful deterrent. It's a lot easier to accept something like C++ because it's just a superset of C, and we've been using C for years. Even if it is overhyped, the C++ compiler vendors certainly tried to make it happen. I suspect the same effect contributed to Java's success as well. Look, it's got curly braces and semicolons. It's just like C! Of course! Groetjes Albert -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. alb...@spearc.xs4all.nl =n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Albert van der Horst alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes: We had a similar discussion on comp.lang.forth. Heh, fancy meeting you here ;-) The bottom line is that to implement a programming language you want to use a simpler programming language, not a more complicated one. Nah, gas is written in C, and nobody implements VHDL as logic gates. (We went on whether Forth would be a suitable high level assembler for Haskell. It would beat C++ -- not C -- for implementing Python, that much I'm sure.) Haskell (or at least certain parts of it) should probably be implemented in Coq or Agda, which are even higher level than Haskell. Undoubtedly C is the right choice to implement Python. Python has been experimentally implemented in Haskell: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/berp-0.0.2 but the most interesting implementation (not yet ready for production, but a serious ongoing project partly funded by the EU) is written in Python itself: http://codespeak.net/pypy/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote: In article i3e43n$v7...@lust.ihug.co.nz, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote: In message roy-6bcfa7.22564104082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith wrote: C++, for all its flaws, had one powerful feature which made it very popular. It is a superset of C. Actually, it never was. Yes, there are a few corner cases where valid C syntax has different semantics in C and C++. But, they are very few. Calling C++ a superset of C is essentially correct. This is only true if you limit yourself to C89 (as python seems to do). If you start using C99 (and lot of people do, if only because they don't realize it because gcc is quite relax about it), then almost no non trivial C code is valid C++ in my experience. David -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In article mailman.1666.1281075732.1673.python-l...@python.org, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, there are a few corner cases where valid C syntax has different semantics in C and C++. Â But, they are very few. Â Calling C++ a superset of C is essentially correct. This is only true if you limit yourself to C89 (as python seems to do). If you start using C99 (and lot of people do, if only because they don't realize it because gcc is quite relax about it), then almost no non trivial C code is valid C++ in my experience. I'm not following you. If anything, C99 makes C closer to C++. Can you give me some examples of valid C99 which is not also valid C++? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote: In article mailman.1666.1281075732.1673.python-l...@python.org, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, there are a few corner cases where valid C syntax has different semantics in C and C++. But, they are very few. Calling C++ a superset of C is essentially correct. This is only true if you limit yourself to C89 (as python seems to do). If you start using C99 (and lot of people do, if only because they don't realize it because gcc is quite relax about it), then almost no non trivial C code is valid C++ in my experience. I'm not following you. If anything, C99 makes C closer to C++. Can you give me some examples of valid C99 which is not also valid C++? variable size array, the meaning of inline, etc... In addition to int f(void) vs int f(), legality vs illegality of p = malloc(n);, type of enum, keyword incompatibility (new, delete, etc...) which are already there in C89. I have yet seen a project where you could build C code with a C++ compiler - the only ones I know are specifically designed that way and it is painful. David -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In message mailman.1681.1281102958.1673.python-l...@python.org, David Cournapeau wrote: I have yet seen a project where you could build C code with a C++ compiler - the only ones I know are specifically designed that way and it is painful. I seem to recall a FAQ entry, might have been on kernelnewbies.org, asking why the Linux kernel wasn’t written in C++. The answer explained that at one time there was an experiment to make the kernel compilable with a C++ compiler, without actually using any C++ features. The result: they lost about 10% in speed. That was enough to put the kernel developers off taking the experiment any further. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In message 7xocdi56cp@ruckus.brouhaha.com, Paul Rubin wrote: I'd say the Ada standardizers went to a great deal of trouble to specify and document stuff that other languages simply leave undefined, leaving developers relying on implementation-specific behavior that's not part of the standard. OK, I have a copy of KR 2nd Ed on a shelf within reach here. Can you point out some behaviour that C programmers might need to rely on, that is not specified in that document? Ada itself is not necessarily more complicated. It is. Look at its baroque type structure. Hint: why is type A is B; a syntax error? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In message roy-6bcfa7.22564104082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith wrote: C++, for all its flaws, had one powerful feature which made it very popular. It is a superset of C. Actually, it never was. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
C++ is actually not that bad. Can't compare it to C, but nothing compares to C... I think the bad reputation it got (and still has) is from Microsoft's visual studio IDE (that was and still is horrible) A lot of good applications are written in C++, but many bad ones as well. Sorry for swearing in the church, but I'm pulling out PHP as an example. Easy on beginners, the fat that you can jump in and out of PHP mode helps too. It attracts a lot of beginner developers, and most of them write bad code. It does not make the language a bad language, in fact PHP5 is pretty good, but it means that there is a lot of bad code out there, but then we have gems like MediaWiki and Drupal that is really good software. You can write bad code in any language, and many languages get a bad reputation because a lot of bad code is written in it. The real test is not how bad code you can write, but the limit for how good code you can write without jumping trough (too manny) hoops. On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote: In message roy-6bcfa7.22564104082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith wrote: C++, for all its flaws, had one powerful feature which made it very popular. It is a superset of C. Actually, it never was. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- --Desktop Browser, Google Apps - Christoffer Viken / CVi i=0 str=kI4dJMtXAv0m3cUiPKx8H while i=20: if i%3 and not i%4: print str[i], i=i+1 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand writes: In message roy-6bcfa7.22564104082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith wrote: C++, for all its flaws, had one powerful feature which made it very popular. It is a superset of C. Actually, it never was. Wondering off topic a bit - I am reminded of something I once read in some MS blurb... it described something as an extended subset of some standard or another. (Think about it :)) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 08/05/10 05:33, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: OK, I have a copy of KR 2nd Ed on a shelf within reach here. Can you point out some behaviour that C programmers might need to rely on, that is not specified in that document? need to is considerably different from might. Size of an int, assumptions that int=pointer, evaluation order of postfix increment/decrement... http://stackoverflow.com/questions/625333/how-to-limit-the-impact-of-implementation-dependent-language-features-in-c or http://tinyurl.com/263jayy if mailers between here there break the URL) Just because facilities (macros, best-practices, etc) have been established for some of these things doesn't mean a programmer will reach for them if their code happens to work locally without them. Trust me...I've encountered PLENTY of such code in production before I left behind (for the most part) the world of C. -tkc -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 8/2/2010 5:42 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: On 02/08/2010 00:08, 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? 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. Has it ever been planned to rewrite in C++ the historical implementation (of course in an object oriented design) ? I can't understand why any serious programmer mentions C++. As soon as I read it, I have to rush either to the kitchen to find a bowl to throw up in, or head for the toilet so I can talk to the great white telephone. It must be because we can not be as phenomenally intelligent as you evidently are from your comment. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand writes: OK, I have a copy of KR 2nd Ed on a shelf within reach here. Can you point out some behaviour that C programmers might need to rely on, that is not specified in that document? C has all kinds of undefined behavior. Might need to rely on is not relevant for this kind of issue. Ada's designers had the goal that that Ada programs should have NO undefined behavior. As a famous example of C's underspecification, the behavior of a[i++] = i; is undefined in C99. See: https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/seccode/EXP30-C.+Do+not+depend+on+order+of+evaluation+between+sequence+points -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Aug 1, 9:34 pm, Albert Hopkins mar...@letterboxes.org wrote: On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 01:08 +0200, candide wrote: I would propose that in fact most programming languages are implemented in C. Sun's (Oracle's) Java compiler and runtime are written in ANSI C. The core of the Gnu Compiler Collection (which includes C++ and Objective-C compilers) is written in C. The open-source GCC Ada compiler (GNAT) is written in Ada. The GPL'd compiler source code is available at http://libre.adacore.com/libre/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Paul Rubin: C has all kinds of undefined behavior. Might need to rely on is not relevant for this kind of issue. Ada's designers had the goal that that Ada programs should have NO undefined behavior. Ada achieves this by describing a long list of implementation defined behaviour (Annex M). http://oopweb.com/Ada/Documents/Ada95RM/Volume/m.htm As a famous example of C's underspecification, the behavior of a[i++] = i; is undefined in C99. Ada does not define ordering in all cases either. For example the order of elaboration of library_items (essentially the order in which modules are run in the absence of explicit declarations) is defined for GNAT as first elaborating bodies as early as possible (i.e. in preference to specs where there is a choice), and second by evaluating the immediate with clauses of a unit to determine the probably best choice, and third by elaborating in alphabetical order of unit names where a choice still remains Other compilers use different orders. I just love that probably. Neil -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In article i3e43n$v7...@lust.ihug.co.nz, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote: In message roy-6bcfa7.22564104082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith wrote: C++, for all its flaws, had one powerful feature which made it very popular. It is a superset of C. Actually, it never was. Yes, there are a few corner cases where valid C syntax has different semantics in C and C++. But, they are very few. Calling C++ a superset of C is essentially correct. It is certainly correct from the level of a risk-averse development manager deciding if he or she is willing to use C++ for the first time. Fear of the unknown is a powerful deterrent. It's a lot easier to accept something like C++ because it's just a superset of C, and we've been using C for years. I suspect the same effect contributed to Java's success as well. Look, it's got curly braces and semicolons. It's just like C! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand writes: I believe the life-support software on the International Space Station is written in Ada. Would anybody feel happier if that had been done in C++? Take a look at the articles on C bug-finding on Dawson Engler's page: http://www.stanford.edu/~engler/ They are about tools that found 100's of bugs in various large C programs including Linux and OpenBSD. Most of those bugs would probably not have been possible in Ada. Program bugs are generally either subtle errors or dumb ones. Humans always will make dumb errors from time to time, and C does almost nothing to prevent them (C++ used properly is somewhat better). Ada doesn't prevent the subtle ones but appears much better than C or C++ at preventing the dumb kind. I'm not sure what the hiring issue is. I think anyone skilled in C++ or Java can pick up Ada pretty easily. It's mostly a subset of C++ with different surface syntax. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Grant Edwards: That said, the last time I looked the Ada spec was only something like 100 pages long, so a case could be made that it won't take long to learn. I don't know how long the C++ language spec is, but I'm betting it's closer to 1000 than 100. The Ada 2012 Language Reference Manual is 860 pages and the Ada 2005 LRM was 790 pages. The annotated versions are even longer http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/ada12.html Neil -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In message pv76o.2574$yv@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com, Neil Hodgson wrote: The Ada 2012 Language Reference Manual is 860 pages and the Ada 2005 LRM was 790 pages. The annotated versions are even longer http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/ada12.html Yeah, unfortunately the language was designed by a committee which was trying to meet a specification laid down by another committee set up by the US military. It seems apt to describe the resulting design as “bulletproof”, but “elegant” or “concise” ... not so much. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In message pan.2010.08.03.08.35.59.328...@nowhere.com, Nobody wrote: One feature which can't readily be implemented in C is the automatic clean-up side of the RAII idiom. Use do-once blocks http://www.geek-central.gen.nz/peeves/programming_discipline.html. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In message 7d95c0d3-718d-4958-9364-263c833f1...@i24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, sturlamolden wrote: This is unsafe, anyone who writes this in C++ should be flogged: Only if they’re using exceptions. Otherwise, it’s fine. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Carl Banks wrote: On Aug 3, 7:07 pm, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote: Mozilla is fed up with C++ and seems to be working on its own language, called Rust: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4009 That looks much better than Go. It's like all the cool features of Go without the annoying polemics. I'm starting to get the feeling one of these languages is going to hit a sweet spot and turn C into the next Cobol. Carl Banks I hope you're right, for our children sanity :) JM -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 2010-08-04, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote: Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid writes: The issue that would prevent its use where I work is the inability to hire anybody who knows Ada. ... That said, the last time I looked the Ada spec was only something like 100 pages long, so a case could be made that it won't take long to learn. Well, I don't know Ada (I've read about it but not written actual code), so maybe I shouldn't be the one saying this, but geez, it's another imperative, procedural language, like Algol or Pascal or even C. Its type is much more serious than C's but shouldn't be a problem for anyone who uses C++ or Java generics. I agree 100%. It also has a real module system unlike more commonly used languages, but 1) that part seems easy to understand; and 2) usually that's used for multi-programmer projects, so as long as there's some reasonable proportion of experienced users on the team, the inter-module interfaces should be sensible and less experienced users can just program to existing interfaces and/or get some help from others. Ada's module system is much simpler than (say) ML's. I don't know how long the C++ language spec is, but I'm betting it's closer to 1000 than 100. I don't know about an official spec. Stroustrup's The C++ programming language is about 1000 pp, but it's a textbook, with lots of examples, exercises, etc. I read through an earlier (shorter) edition in a couple of evenings a long time ago and it all made sense. It has some hairy aspects like the notorious template metaprogramming, but most users simply won't get involved with that. Python has its own obscure and confusing features if that matters. I couldn't get anybody to use Python either. :/ The problem has nothing to do with the relative merits of the languages. The problem is inertia. I think I'm a reasonably good Python programmer but I've never written a special metaclass and wouldn't really know how to. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! I would like to at urinate in an OVULAR, gmail.comporcelain pool -- -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 2010-08-04, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote: I'm not sure what the hiring issue is. I think anyone skilled in C++ or Java can pick up Ada pretty easily. It's mostly a subset of C++ with different surface syntax. In my experience, the hiring issue is we're already behind schedule and short-handed, we don't have the time or resources to teach people a new language. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! Did YOU find a at DIGITAL WATCH in YOUR box gmail.comof VELVEETA? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 2010-08-04, Neil Hodgson nyamatongwe+thun...@gmail.com wrote: Grant Edwards: That said, the last time I looked the Ada spec was only something like 100 pages long, so a case could be made that it won't take long to learn. I don't know how long the C++ language spec is, but I'm betting it's closer to 1000 than 100. The Ada 2012 Language Reference Manual is 860 pages and the Ada 2005 LRM was 790 pages. The annotated versions are even longer http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/ada12.html Wow. That's grown a lot over the years. I used to have a paper copy, (single-sided), and it was only about 1cm thick. Ok, I guess that was probably 20 years ago... -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! I wonder if I ought at to tell them about my gmail.comPREVIOUS LIFE as a COMPLETE STRANGER? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In message i3bsjf$kf...@reader1.panix.com, Grant Edwards wrote: In my experience, the hiring issue is we're already behind schedule and short-handed, we don't have the time or resources to teach people a new language. Most people seem to need tutorials or handholding of some sort. Look at the number of questions in this group which could be answered just by reading the reference manual. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In message i3bseh$kf...@reader1.panix.com, Grant Edwards wrote: The problem has nothing to do with the relative merits of the languages. The problem is inertia. So how was C++ able to get popular in the first place? And how was Java able to grab some share from it? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand writes: The Ada 2012 Language Reference Manual is 860 pages ... Yeah, unfortunately the language was designed by a committee ... It seems apt to describe the resulting design as “bulletproof”, but “elegant” or “concise” ... not so much. I'd say the Ada standardizers went to a great deal of trouble to specify and document stuff that other languages simply leave undefined, leaving developers relying on implementation-specific behavior that's not part of the standard. Ada itself is not necessarily more complicated. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 2010-08-04, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote: In message i3bseh$kf...@reader1.panix.com, Grant Edwards wrote: The problem has nothing to do with the relative merits of the languages. The problem is inertia. So how was C++ able to get popular in the first place? Building on C's popularity helped. And how was Java able to grab some share from it? Good question. Both IBM and Sun put a lot of effort/money behind Java. -- Grant -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand writes: So how was C++ able to get popular in the first place? And how was Java able to grab some share from it? C++ made improvements over C that were necessary and welcome for controlling the complexity of large programs, while remaining mostly upward compatible with C. Java abandoned C compatibility and added memory safety and GC. That got rid of legacy-related pain and improved program reliability and eased debugging considerably, at some cost in performance. Java was also on the OO bandwagon of the 1990's, which translated into good marketing back then, but is part of the cause of the massive bureaucracy and bloat in the Java runtime environment. C++ seems to have made something of a comeback because of this, and Java now has generics patterned after C++'s. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Aug 4, 4:04 pm, Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid wrote: On 2010-08-04, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote: In message i3bseh$kf...@reader1.panix.com, Grant Edwards wrote: The problem has nothing to do with the relative merits of the languages. The problem is inertia. So how was C++ able to get popular in the first place? Building on C's popularity helped. ATT + Money + C backward compatibility And how was Java able to grab some share from it? Good question. Both IBM and Sun put a lot of effort/money behind Java. Sun + IBM + Money + 90s Web trinkets Carl Banks (haven't seen a Java applet in ages) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Aug 4, 4:23 pm, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote: Java was also on the OO bandwagon of the 1990's, which translated into good marketing back then, but is part of the cause of the massive bureaucracy and bloat in the Java runtime environment. C++ seems to have made something of a comeback because of this, and Java now has generics patterned after C++'s. When I first studied Java, my first impression of the language was that it had a Prime Directive that, other than single inheritance and being kinda like C, don't do anything C++ did. Not a bad policy, actually. However, omitting generics was probably the second worst thing about Java (the worst thing being the awful AWT design). Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In article i3cqia$82...@lust.ihug.co.nz, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote: In message i3bseh$kf...@reader1.panix.com, Grant Edwards wrote: The problem has nothing to do with the relative merits of the languages. The problem is inertia. So how was C++ able to get popular in the first place? And how was Java able to grab some share from it? C++, for all its flaws, had one powerful feature which made it very popular. It is a superset of C. Whatever that may mean from a technical standpoint, it made the language feel safe and comfortable and low-risk to managers. From a more technical standpoint, it had the very real advantage of being able to include all the C system headers and link against C system libraries. As for Java, that's easy. You could launch Java applets from inside a web browser. In those days, anything related to the web was a one-way express ticket to fame and fortune. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:17:35 -0700, Peter wrote: But I always used to tell people - by the time I got a program to compile then I figured 99% of the bugs were already discovered! Try that with C/C++ or almost any other language you care to name :-) ML and Haskell are also quite good for this (although I wish they supported integer subranges). Also, the statelessness of FP eliminates entire classes of bugs. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:18:30 -0700, sturlamolden wrote: Has it ever been planned to rewrite in C++ the historical implementation (of course in an object oriented design) ? OO programming is possible in C. Just take a look at GNOME and GTK. One feature which can't readily be implemented in C is the automatic clean-up side of the RAII idiom. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Nobody nob...@nowhere.com wrote: On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:18:30 -0700, sturlamolden wrote: Has it ever been planned to rewrite in C++ the historical implementation (of course in an object oriented design) ? OO programming is possible in C. Just take a look at GNOME and GTK. One feature which can't readily be implemented in C is the automatic clean-up side of the RAII idiom. That's not directly related to object-orientation though. Cheers, Chris -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Nobody nob...@nowhere.com wrote: One feature which can't readily be implemented in C is the automatic clean-up side of the RAII idiom. C is a Turing-Complete Language is it not ? If so, therefore is it not true anything can be implemented ? Even the automated clean-up side of the RAIL idiom ? cheers James -- -- James Mills -- -- Problems are solved by method -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:48:24 +1000, James Mills wrote: On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Nobody nob...@nowhere.com wrote: One feature which can't readily be implemented in C is the automatic clean-up side of the RAII idiom. C is a Turing-Complete Language is it not ? If so, therefore is it not true anything can be implemented ? Even the automated clean-up side of the RAIL idiom ? True, but Nobody said it can't *readily* be implemented, not that it can't be. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Steven D'Aprano steve-remove-t...@cybersource.com.au wrote: True, but Nobody said it can't *readily* be implemented, not that it can't be. So he did too :) I read that as really :/ --James -- -- James Mills -- -- Problems are solved by method -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com writes:
On Aug 1, 6:09 pm, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote:
Roy Smith r...@panix.com writes:
In article 4c55fe82$0$9111$426a3...@news.free.fr,
candide cand...@free.invalid wrote:
Python is an object oriented langage (OOL). The Python main
implementation is written in pure and old C90. Is it for historical
reasons?
C is not an OOL and C++ strongly is. I wonder if it wouldn't be more
suitable to implement an OOL with another one.
One thing that comes to mind is that it's much easier to distribute C
libraries than C++ libraries.
In the beginning of C++ there were programs that just converted C++ to C
(frontends). At least that is how the C++ compiler Acorn sold worked.
So I don't think your argument was much true back then.
No, it was that way back then too. They might all generate C code but
different C code by different backends wouldn't be able to call each
other natively.
If you convert C++ to C, and compile the C code then that's not
different from compiling the C code itself, correct?
For instnace the function
int foo(int);
might be name-mangled this way in one cfront:
foo$d
and this way in another:
int_foo__int_i
But they call both the C libraries in the same way.
The virtual table of this class:
class Bar {
virtual int foo(int);
virtual int bar(int);
};
might be generated like this in one cfront:
struct Bar$$Vtable$ {
int (*Bar$$bar$d)(int);
int (*Bar$$foo$d)(int);
};
and like this in another:
struct class_Foo___vtable_ {
int (*foo)(int);
int (*bar)(int);
};
So, just because they both generated C code, it doesn't mean they can
call one another.
Why would they need to call each other? The compiled C++ code ends up as
being compiled generated C code.
It has been a while, but I am quite sure that the Acorn C++ front end I
used could dump the actual generated C code. And this generated code
should compile with a normal C compiler on a different platform.
The only exception I can think of is if the front end comes with
libraries you have to link against. But since this should be C as well
(since there is no native C++), I don't see any problem to recreate
those libraries.
--
John Bokma j3b
Hacking Hiking in Mexico - http://johnbokma.com/
http://castleamber.com/ - Perl Python Development
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Albert Hopkins mar...@letterboxes.org writes: But I wonder if someone has/has tried to write a programming language in C++ and what were their experiences. The Low Level Virtual Machine (LLVM) is a compiler infrastructure, written in C++, which is designed for compile-time, link-time, run-time, and idle-time optimization of programs written in arbitrary programming languages. Originally implemented for C/C++, the language-independent design (and the success) of LLVM has since spawned a wide variety of front ends, including Objective-C, Fortran, Ada, Haskell, Java bytecode, Python, Ruby, ActionScript, GLSL, and others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM Unladen Swallow is a branch of Python intended to be fully compatible and significantly faster. It uses LLVM's optimization passes and JIT compiler. http://llvm.org/ProjectsWithLLVM/#unladenswallow -- John Bokma j3b Hacking Hiking in Mexico - http://johnbokma.com/ http://castleamber.com/ - Perl Python Development -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com writes: On 08/01/2010 07:09 PM, John Bokma wrote: One thing that comes to mind is that it's much easier to distribute C libraries than C++ libraries. In the beginning of C++ there were programs that just converted C++ to C (frontends). At least that is how the C++ compiler Acorn sold worked. So I don't think your argument was much true back then. No, he is still right. Each C++ implementation did name mangling differently leading to C libraries that had incompatible names and signatures. Also each frontend could have generated incompatible vtables and other C++ structures. So C code generated by one C++ frontend could not easily call C code generated by another C++ frontend. So the same arguments that are made about C++ now were just as valid back then when C++ was merely a fancy preprocessor. See my other post: I understand that two C++ preprocessors can't call each others generated code, but if one uses C++ and knows that one can only use shared C libraries on target systems, and not C++ libraries that might be present (or more likely not: C++ was new in those days). -- John Bokma j3b Hacking Hiking in Mexico - http://johnbokma.com/ http://castleamber.com/ - Perl Python Development -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:48:24 +1000, James Mills wrote: One feature which can't readily be implemented in C is the automatic clean-up side of the RAII idiom. C is a Turing-Complete Language is it not ? If so, therefore is it not true anything can be implemented ? Even the automated clean-up side of the RAIL idiom ? By automated, I mean the fact that destructors get called automatically when a local variable goes out of scope, whether by reaching the end of the block, return, break, continue, or an exception. In C, the clean-up has to be made explicit, i.e. not automated. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Nobody nob...@nowhere.com writes: One feature which can't readily be implemented in C is the automatic clean-up side of the RAII idiom. I once did that by having an explicit stack of finalization records linked through the call stack. The throw routine would traverse the links to call the finalizers, until it found the matching catch which contained a longjmp target. It wasn't as crazy as this makes it sound. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 2010-08-02, Aahz a...@pythoncraft.com wrote: In article f9e652d6-3945-4c18-92f3-b85b994fe...@k8g2000prh.googlegroups.com, Peter peter.milli...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 3, 7:42=A0am, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On 02/08/2010 00:08, candide wrote: I can't understand why any serious programmer mentions C++. As soon as I read it, I have to rush either to the kitchen to find a bowl to throw up in, or head for the toilet so I can talk to the great white telephone. With you there Mark - IMO C++ is an abortion that should never have seen the light of day. The idea of experimenting with creating an OO language by extending C wasn't such a bad idea for a play thing (by Stroustrop) but the fact that it somehow escaped from the Lab and people picked it up and ran with it on a commercial basis is just plain wrong! http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/98/May/stroustrup.html It's funny (and sad) because it's so close to being true. (The effect, I mean, not necissarly the intent.) There's no computing problem so simple that it can't be solved in a complex and obtuse manner in C++. I know that's true of any language, but from what I've seen over the years, it more true in C++. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! Should I get locked at in the PRINCICAL'S gmail.comOFFICE today -- or have a VASECTOMY?? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 2010-08-02, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote: Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com writes: Sometimes, C++ is just the right tool for the job, despite all its warts C++'s object semantics (guaranteed destruction, scoping, etc) can sometimes work very well when you need the speed of a compiled language, but don't want to be quite as low-level as C. In this case, C++ is certainly not a better tool for the job than C. The stuff C++ adds to C is a mix of good and bad, and it's reasonably possible to use just the good stuff and ignore the bad. Except nobody does. ;) I've never programmed in Ada but I'm intrigued by these articles: http://adahome.com/Ammo/cpp2ada.html http://www.adaic.org/whyada/ada-vs-c/cada_art.html I have the impression that Ada has an undeservedly bad rap because of its early implementations and its origins in military bureaucracy. I'd certainly consider it as an alternative to C or C++ if I had to write a big program in a traditional procedural language. I've always thought Ada was a pretty nice embedded/systems languages, but some of the initial implementations were indede horrible. The one I used for a little while ran on VAX/VMS but didn't use the VMS filesystem, editors, or other utilities. The Ada enviroment was a completely closed, walled system. It kept it's files in some sort of opaque database and they could only be accessed, edited, compiled, etc. from within the Ada development enviornment (a system with really, really awful editing and build tools). There was a way to import/export files, but it wasn't easy. Still, the Ada-environment tools were _so_ bad that people exported a file, edited it using some VMS-based editor and the re-imported it whenever a change needed to be made. Apparently the intent was to provide the identically awful user-torturing-experience regardless of OS. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! I represent a at sardine!! gmail.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Aug 3, 2:29 am, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote: Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com writes: On Aug 1, 6:09 pm, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote: Roy Smith r...@panix.com writes: In article 4c55fe82$0$9111$426a3...@news.free.fr, candide cand...@free.invalid wrote: Python is an object oriented langage (OOL). The Python main implementation is written in pure and old C90. Is it for historical reasons? C is not an OOL and C++ strongly is. I wonder if it wouldn't be more suitable to implement an OOL with another one. One thing that comes to mind is that it's much easier to distribute C libraries than C++ libraries. In the beginning of C++ there were programs that just converted C++ to C (frontends). At least that is how the C++ compiler Acorn sold worked. So I don't think your argument was much true back then. No, it was that way back then too. They might all generate C code but different C code by different backends wouldn't be able to call each other natively. If you convert C++ to C, and compile the C code then that's not different from compiling the C code itself, correct? For instnace the function int foo(int); might be name-mangled this way in one cfront: foo$d and this way in another: int_foo__int_i But they call both the C libraries in the same way. Go look at the original claim, the one that you responded to. It's much easier to distribute C libraries than C++ libraries. Of course they can both call C libraries. All modern C++ compilers can too, not just cfronts. What almost no C++ compiler or C++ front can do is call a C++ library that a different C++ compiler or C++ front generated. (Unless they export function calls with C linkage, but that's not too helpful since the ostensible benefit of C++ is function overloading and subclassing and such, which you can't do at all between different compilers or fronts.) Hence, It's much easier to distribute C libraries than C++ libraries. [snip rest of post that misses the point] Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
John Bokma wrote: Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com writes: On 08/01/2010 07:09 PM, John Bokma wrote: One thing that comes to mind is that it's much easier to distribute C libraries than C++ libraries. In the beginning of C++ there were programs that just converted C++ to C (frontends). At least that is how the C++ compiler Acorn sold worked. So I don't think your argument was much true back then. No, he is still right. Each C++ implementation did name mangling differently leading to C libraries that had incompatible names and signatures. Also each frontend could have generated incompatible vtables and other C++ structures. So C code generated by one C++ frontend could not easily call C code generated by another C++ frontend. So the same arguments that are made about C++ now were just as valid back then when C++ was merely a fancy preprocessor. See my other post: I understand that two C++ preprocessors can't call each others generated code, but if one uses C++ and knows that one can only use shared C libraries on target systems, and not C++ libraries that might be present (or more likely not: C++ was new in those days). So if Python were written in C++, and an extension was written in C++, how could the two call each other? ~Ethan~ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 8/1/2010 5:36 PM, Roy Smith wrote: In article4c55fe82$0$9111$426a3...@news.free.fr, candidecand...@free.invalid wrote: Python is an object oriented langage (OOL). The Python main implementation is written in pure and old C90. Is it for historical reasons? 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. One thing that comes to mind is that it's much easier to distribute C libraries than C++ libraries. If I compile a main program with one C compiler and you compile a dynamically loaded library with another C compiler on the same box, the odds are pretty good they'll interoperate without any problems. Not for Python. Extensions have to be built with essentially the same version of the same C compiler used for building Python. This is a major headache. John Nagle -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:44 AM, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote: On 8/1/2010 5:36 PM, Roy Smith wrote: In article4c55fe82$0$9111$426a3...@news.free.fr, candidecand...@free.invalid wrote: Python is an object oriented langage (OOL). The Python main implementation is written in pure and old C90. Is it for historical reasons? 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. One thing that comes to mind is that it's much easier to distribute C libraries than C++ libraries. If I compile a main program with one C compiler and you compile a dynamically loaded library with another C compiler on the same box, the odds are pretty good they'll interoperate without any problems. Not for Python. Extensions have to be built with essentially the same version of the same C compiler used for building Python. This is a major headache. John Nagle -- Pretty sure that's only one Windows, and only because they need to be linked to the same version of MSVC. It's not a compiler issue, it's incompatible library versions. http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid writes: There's no computing problem so simple that it can't be solved in a complex and obtuse manner in C++. I know that's true of any language, but from what I've seen over the years, it more true in C++. http://www.willamette.edu/~fruehr/haskell/evolution.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com writes: On Aug 3, 2:29 am, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote: [..] But they call both the C libraries in the same way. Go look at the original claim, the one that you responded to. It's much easier to distribute C libraries than C++ libraries. Yup, and if I read it correctly the claim was: and that's why C++ was not chosen. I doubt it. Hence, It's much easier to distribute C libraries than C++ libraries. Yup, but still doesn't exclude C++ from being used to implement a programming language. And I would appreciate some respect, especially from someone who's too lazy to do some editing before posting, thank you. -- John Bokma j3b Hacking Hiking in Mexico - http://johnbokma.com/ http://castleamber.com/ - Perl Python Development -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us writes: John Bokma wrote: Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com writes: On 08/01/2010 07:09 PM, John Bokma wrote: One thing that comes to mind is that it's much easier to distribute C libraries than C++ libraries. In the beginning of C++ there were programs that just converted C++ to C (frontends). At least that is how the C++ compiler Acorn sold worked. So I don't think your argument was much true back then. No, he is still right. Each C++ implementation did name mangling differently leading to C libraries that had incompatible names and signatures. Also each frontend could have generated incompatible vtables and other C++ structures. So C code generated by one C++ frontend could not easily call C code generated by another C++ frontend. So the same arguments that are made about C++ now were just as valid back then when C++ was merely a fancy preprocessor. See my other post: I understand that two C++ preprocessors can't call each others generated code, but if one uses C++ and knows that one can only use shared C libraries on target systems, and not C++ libraries that might be present (or more likely not: C++ was new in those days). So if Python were written in C++, and an extension was written in C++, how could the two call each other? Via C. -- John Bokma j3b Hacking Hiking in Mexico - http://johnbokma.com/ http://castleamber.com/ - Perl Python Development -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
John Bokma wrote: Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us writes: John Bokma wrote: Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com writes: On 08/01/2010 07:09 PM, John Bokma wrote: One thing that comes to mind is that it's much easier to distribute C libraries than C++ libraries. In the beginning of C++ there were programs that just converted C++ to C (frontends). At least that is how the C++ compiler Acorn sold worked. So I don't think your argument was much true back then. No, he is still right. Each C++ implementation did name mangling differently leading to C libraries that had incompatible names and signatures. Also each frontend could have generated incompatible vtables and other C++ structures. So C code generated by one C++ frontend could not easily call C code generated by another C++ frontend. So the same arguments that are made about C++ now were just as valid back then when C++ was merely a fancy preprocessor. See my other post: I understand that two C++ preprocessors can't call each others generated code, but if one uses C++ and knows that one can only use shared C libraries on target systems, and not C++ libraries that might be present (or more likely not: C++ was new in those days). So if Python were written in C++, and an extension was written in C++, how could the two call each other? Via C. Huh? Presumably Python itself is not a library, and the extension may not be a library, at some point they will have different name mangling schemes... are you suggesting that after going through the effort if writing all this in C++ you would then have to write a wrapper in C so the two could talk to each other? ~Ethan~ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Aug 3, 3:19 pm, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote: Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com writes: On Aug 3, 2:29 am, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote: [..] But they call both the C libraries in the same way. Go look at the original claim, the one that you responded to. It's much easier to distribute C libraries than C++ libraries. Yup, and if I read it correctly the claim was: and that's why C++ was not chosen. I doubt it. I think it was. Not necessarily that GvR made a list of reasons to choose C over C++. But the fact that C++ has almost no interoperability between compilers except via regular C linkage is a major cultural reason why it's avoided for programs that need extensible APIs like Python, which is why language implementors try to avoid it. The availability of C++ fronts that translate to C isn't the slightest bit relevant to this. Hence, It's much easier to distribute C libraries than C++ libraries. Yup, but still doesn't exclude C++ from being used to implement a programming language. Well, if you want to write a language that people can write extensions for using something other than the same C++ compiler you used, then your only option is to use C external linkage which means that whatever OOP advantages C++ gives you aren't going to be available to extensions. This is true even if you use a C++ front instead of a compiler. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In article 87aap3uyo7@castleamber.com, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote: Go look at the original claim, the one that you responded to. It's much easier to distribute C libraries than C++ libraries. Yup, and if I read it correctly the claim was: and that's why C++ was not chosen. I doubt it. I didn't intend to claim quite that much. I'm just saying it's a consideration. I was not privy to the original design decisions. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Has it ever been planned to rewrite in C++ the historical implementation (of course in an object oriented design) ? Around the time Guido coined the term Python 3000 (i.e. in 2000), he also said at a few occasions that it would be written in C++. He subsequently dropped the idea, for the reasons that people have been discussing. Regards, Martin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In message i3982t$79...@reader1.panix.com, Grant Edwards wrote: I've always thought Ada was a pretty nice embedded/systems languages, but some of the initial implementations were indede horrible. Well, there’s GNAT, the GNU Ada implementation. Seems pretty robust and complete, while offering backward compatibility with some of those “initial implementations”, presumably because people have so much code already written for them. Disclaimer: the most complicated Ada program I’ve ever written is this http://www.codecodex.com/wiki/Concurrent_Quicksort. Or maybe this http://www.codecodex.com/wiki/Parallel_Sieve_of_Eratosthenes. :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 2010-08-04, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote: In message i3982t$79...@reader1.panix.com, Grant Edwards wrote: I've always thought Ada was a pretty nice embedded/systems languages, but some of the initial implementations were indede horrible. Well, there?s GNAT, the GNU Ada implementation. Seems pretty robust and complete, while offering backward compatibility with some of those ?initial implementations?, presumably because people have so much code already written for them. Yep, I've installed Gnat a couple times with the intention of playing around with it, but there's pretty much zero chance I could sell it at the office in place of C/C++ for embedded stuff, and for desktop stuff it's just way to easy to get programs done using Python. I also looked at Modula-3 once, and thought it had some real promise, but I think it's probably deader than Ada now. -- Grant -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid writes: Yep, I've installed Gnat a couple times with the intention of playing around with it, but there's pretty much zero chance I could sell it at the office in place of C/C++ for embedded stuff, I wonder what the issues are. From everything I've heard, it's a pretty good compiler. It does ok against C/C++ in the Alioth shootouts. I haven't written anything in it beyond hello world but I've looked at the wikibook about it and that intro piece that I linked earlier. It's more verbose than C, so coding in it takes more keystrokes, but it looks to me like the general coding approach (modulo the extra keystrokes) should be similar to that of C, Algol, and so on, and the results should be quite a bit more reliable. Mozilla is fed up with C++ and seems to be working on its own language, called Rust: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4009 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 2010-08-04, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote: Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid writes: Yep, I've installed Gnat a couple times with the intention of playing around with it, but there's pretty much zero chance I could sell it at the office in place of C/C++ for embedded stuff, I wonder what the issues are. The issue that would prevent its use where I work is the inability to hire anybody who knows Ada. You can't hire anybody who knows C++ either, but you can hire lots of people who claim they do. [I'm not convinced that there are more than about 6 people on the planet who know C++ well enough that they should be writing real projects in it.] That said, the last time I looked the Ada spec was only something like 100 pages long, so a case could be made that it won't take long to learn. I don't know how long the C++ language spec is, but I'm betting it's closer to 1000 than 100. But I failed when I tried to get people to use Python, so I doubt I'd have any better luck with Ada. From everything I've heard, it's a pretty good compiler. I think it's probably a very good compiler. It's the compiler users that are the issue. It does ok against C/C++ in the Alioth shootouts. I haven't written anything in it beyond hello world but I've looked at the wikibook about it and that intro piece that I linked earlier. It's more verbose than C, The verbosity always bugged me a little. To my eyes all the sugar gets in the way of seeing the code. Somebody should invent a language where indentation defines the blocks. so coding in it takes more keystrokes, but it looks to me like the general coding approach (modulo the extra keystrokes) should be similar to that of C, Algol, and so on, and the results should be quite a bit more reliable. Indeed. Mozilla is fed up with C++ and seems to be working on its own language, called Rust: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4009 Great! The world needs one more computer language... -- Grant -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid writes: The issue that would prevent its use where I work is the inability to hire anybody who knows Ada. ... That said, the last time I looked the Ada spec was only something like 100 pages long, so a case could be made that it won't take long to learn. Well, I don't know Ada (I've read about it but not written actual code), so maybe I shouldn't be the one saying this, but geez, it's another imperative, procedural language, like Algol or Pascal or even C. Its type is much more serious than C's but shouldn't be a problem for anyone who uses C++ or Java generics. It also has a real module system unlike more commonly used languages, but 1) that part seems easy to understand; and 2) usually that's used for multi-programmer projects, so as long as there's some reasonable proportion of experienced users on the team, the inter-module interfaces should be sensible and less experienced users can just program to existing interfaces and/or get some help from others. Ada's module system is much simpler than (say) ML's. I don't know how long the C++ language spec is, but I'm betting it's closer to 1000 than 100. I don't know about an official spec. Stroustrup's The C++ programming language is about 1000 pp, but it's a textbook, with lots of examples, exercises, etc. I read through an earlier (shorter) edition in a couple of evenings a long time ago and it all made sense. It has some hairy aspects like the notorious template metaprogramming, but most users simply won't get involved with that. Python has its own obscure and confusing features if that matters. I think I'm a reasonably good Python programmer but I've never written a special metaclass and wouldn't really know how to. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 4 Aug, 04:41, Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid wrote: The issue that would prevent its use where I work is the inability to hire anybody who knows Ada. You can't hire anybody who knows C++ either, but you can hire lots of people who claim they do. That is very true. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Aug 3, 7:07 pm, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote: Mozilla is fed up with C++ and seems to be working on its own language, called Rust: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4009 That looks much better than Go. It's like all the cool features of Go without the annoying polemics. I'm starting to get the feeling one of these languages is going to hit a sweet spot and turn C into the next Cobol. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In article ba47afb4-5798-41da-85d3-bb60cf97c...@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com, sturlamolden sturlamol...@yahoo.no wrote: On 4 Aug, 04:41, Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid wrote: The issue that would prevent its use where I work is the inability to hire anybody who knows Ada. You can't hire anybody who knows C++ either, but you can hire lots of people who claim they do. That is very true. I suspect there are less than 100 people in the world who know C++ in the sense that they know every feature, every detail, every quirk. These are the people who sit on the standards committee, write the books we all buy, etc. There are, however, a lot of people who know a large enough subset of C++ to be productive and to write effective, safe, quality code within those boundaries. These people know what they don't know and either avoid using those features, or know where (and when) to look it up. I put myself in that camp. The problem is, there are also a very large number of people who put expert C++ on their resumes and know just enough to be dangerous. The real problem is that it's sometimes difficult to distinguish between the members of the latter two groups in an interview. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In message 7xmxt3uo4h@ruckus.brouhaha.com, Paul Rubin wrote: It's more verbose than C, so coding in it takes more keystrokes, but it looks to me like the general coding approach (modulo the extra keystrokes) should be similar to that of C, Algol, and so on, and the results should be quite a bit more reliable. I believe the life-support software on the International Space Station is written in Ada. Would anybody feel happier if that had been done in C++? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In message i3ajvt$93...@reader1.panix.com, Grant Edwards wrote: That said, the last time I looked the Ada spec was only something like 100 pages long, so a case could be made that it won't take long to learn. I don't know how long the C++ language spec is, but I'm betting it's closer to 1000 than 100. I have a copy of “The C++ Standard (Incorporating Technical Corrigendum No. 1)” on my bookshelf. Let’s see ... flip-flip ... the highest page number is 782. Definitely closer to 1000 than 100. As for Ada ... I don’t have any printed manual, but dpkg-query -L ada-reference-manual | grep -c html/aarm95tc1 counts 353 HTML pages for the annotated reference. I found it fairly tedious to read the lot. But then, I didn’t even try to do that with the C++ spec... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In message roy-00f9bf.4104082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith wrote: There are, however, a lot of people who know a large enough subset of C++ to be productive ... I think there are some language features, knowledge of which has a negative impact on productivity. :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Sun, 2010-08-01 at 20:01 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote: Not every C programmer knows or wants to learn C++. I think Terry is the only person that's mentioned this - but I'd like to give extra support to it - I for one prefer C to C++ (as someone that writes quite a lot of C extension modules). And as Stephen mentioned - just because C is not an OO language, doesn't mean you can't write OO code in it - you just have to pass an instance of the class method is defined on in as the first parameter (like you do in Python). Tim -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 2010-08-02, Christian Heimes li...@cheimes.de wrote: In your opinion what would Python gain from a C++ implementation? Greater buzzword-compliance -- an important characteristic highly prized by Human-Resources poeple and mid-level managers here in the US. ;) -- Grant -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Christian Heimes li...@cheimes.de wrote: In your opinion what would Python gain from a C++ implementation? The elusive advantages of OO in C++ are relatively minor compared to RIIA which would make reference counting much easier to deal with. But even that is not a strong enough argument for C++. The little C++ we have in scipy had causes a lot of headache - C++ portability is still an issue once you are outside the 4-5 main OS/Compilers combinations, David -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 08/02/2010 04:42 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2010-08-02, Christian Heimes li...@cheimes.de wrote: In your opinion what would Python gain from a C++ implementation? Greater buzzword-compliance -- an important characteristic highly prized by Human-Resources poeple and mid-level managers here in the US. ;) C++Python would never beat IronPython on that front -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/01/2010 07:34 PM, Albert Hopkins wrote: On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 01:08 +0200, 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? 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. Has it ever been planned to rewrite in C++ the historical implementation (of course in an object oriented design) ? Disclaimer: I am neither a C nor C++ programmer. In fact I can barely even program in Python ;-) I would propose that in fact most programming languages are implemented in C. Sun's (Oracle's) Java compiler and runtime are written in ANSI C. The core of the Gnu Compiler Collection (which includes C++ and Objective-C compilers) is written in C. The official Ruby is implemented in C. The Squeak Smalltalk implementation uses C instead of C++. I can't even think of a programming language that is implemented in C++ (maybe C++ is). C seems to be a good, portable language for writing interpreters and compilers. But I wonder if someone has/has tried to write a programming language in C++ and what were their experiences. (Sorry if this is a double post, but apparently my last one didn't go through.) I know that LOLCode has a .NET implementation (1), although it's very much alpha. And someone was apparently working on a C++ only implementation of LOLCode (2), although that was 3 years ago. LOLCode itself is very much alpha anyway and development seems to be very slow (or dead.) Python has a way of extending it's modules with C or C++ (3). 1: http://lolcode.com/implementations/lolcode.net 2: http://forum.lolcode.com/viewtopic.php?id=14 3: http://docs.python.org/release/2.5.2/ext/intro.html - -- People should read more. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:MithrandirAgain All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost; the old that is strong does not wither, deep roots are not reached by the frost. - From the ashes a fire shall be woken, a light from the shadows shall spring; renewed shall be blade that was broken, the crownless again shall be king. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMVyNqAAoJEKo37V1xH7gTeOUH/2/KYc4busZbATSB09ZUgW+v BmydxDTZaPQd0B56JWSeUiz0/kZrufdDrVc3XUTNNF2oa8ExW51IgsaZOxn2UJGv ydplycT1axs5hrzDG72v2Oo7/poPDxSsvpF58dBsb0XSI25I+orHKrTQpwvKz9cf x6nzahUoygTbaVqZUyxCW2Tc7Rv4T2gpskssD8sIYqaRNofNnPbf3h3NA+q4LMkR +F2UF3r1RE1jwJhs6RNAvUJBdLrHkA3isRsjQE38l6AioLdeTs2yrRtc+6xUkAig RxR11qLZl5OOer/Jrmg1My0+ZTYGnIcAfChxPh1YnHuYbp+H7doqLjlKIkoXZms= =F9Ou -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 02/08/2010 00:08, 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? 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. Has it ever been planned to rewrite in C++ the historical implementation (of course in an object oriented design) ? I can't understand why any serious programmer mentions C++. As soon as I read it, I have to rush either to the kitchen to find a bowl to throw up in, or head for the toilet so I can talk to the great white telephone. Kindest regards. Mark Lawrence. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On Aug 3, 7:42 am, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On 02/08/2010 00:08, candide wrote: snip I can't understand why any serious programmer mentions C++. As soon as I read it, I have to rush either to the kitchen to find a bowl to throw up in, or head for the toilet so I can talk to the great white telephone. Kindest regards. Mark Lawrence. With you there Mark - IMO C++ is an abortion that should never have seen the light of day. The idea of experimenting with creating an OO language by extending C wasn't such a bad idea for a play thing (by Stroustrop) but the fact that it somehow escaped from the Lab and people picked it up and ran with it on a commercial basis is just plain wrong! Personally I liken it to one of those genetically engineered diseases they play around with in biological warfare labs - and unfortunately this one escaped! It has probably set the computing industry back untold years in terms of advancement... Unfortunately I am forced to use it in my day to day life, but at the end of every day I go home and use a purgative to get it out of my system. But there are many deluded youngsters out there who just don't seem to know any better, but then the signs of the breakdown of society surround us on a daily basis and I guess C++ is just another signpost on the way... Peter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 08/02/2010 03:42 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: I can't understand why any serious programmer mentions C++. As soon as I read it, I have to rush either to the kitchen to find a bowl to throw up in, or head for the toilet so I can talk to the great white telephone. Sometimes, C++ is just the right tool for the job, despite all its warts. For example, programming GTK apps with GTKmm in C++ is way more pleasant than using C (but nowhere as pleasant as Python). C++'s object semantics (guaranteed destruction, scoping, etc) can sometimes work very well when you need the speed of a compiled language, but don't want to be quite as low-level as C. In this case, C++ is certainly not a better tool for the job than C. But plenty of serious programmers know how to leverage C++ and do so quite successfully. Just because C++ makes you ill in no way proves that C++ is unfit for certain purposes. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 2 Aug, 01:08, candide cand...@free.invalid wrote: Has it ever been planned to rewrite in C++ the historical implementation (of course in an object oriented design) ? OO programming is possible in C. Just take a look at GNOME and GTK. Perl is written in C++. That is not enough to make me want to use it ;) To be honest, C++ can be a great tool. But very few know how to use it correctly. C++ textbooks are also written by people who don't understand the language, and teach bad habits. The typical examples revealing incompetence are use of new[] instead of std::vector, and dynamic resourse allocation outside contructors. C++ compilers used to be bloatware generators; C++ compilers of 2010 are not comparable to those of 1990. C++ is also a PITA for portability. It is not sufficient for Python to only build with Microsoft Visual Studio. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com writes: Sometimes, C++ is just the right tool for the job, despite all its warts C++'s object semantics (guaranteed destruction, scoping, etc) can sometimes work very well when you need the speed of a compiled language, but don't want to be quite as low-level as C. In this case, C++ is certainly not a better tool for the job than C. The stuff C++ adds to C is a mix of good and bad, and it's reasonably possible to use just the good stuff and ignore the bad. At that point you've got a pure improvement over C, although a lot of C's shortcomings can't be papered over and still remain. Certain folks in the functional-programming community consider OO to be a 1980's or 1990's approach that didn't work out, and that what it was really trying to supply was polymorphism. C++ programs these days apparently tend to use template-based generics rather than objects and inheritance for that purpose. I've never programmed in Ada but I'm intrigued by these articles: http://adahome.com/Ammo/cpp2ada.html http://www.adaic.org/whyada/ada-vs-c/cada_art.html I have the impression that Ada has an undeservedly bad rap because of its early implementations and its origins in military bureaucracy. I'd certainly consider it as an alternative to C or C++ if I had to write a big program in a traditional procedural language. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 2 Aug, 05:04, Tomasz Rola rto...@ceti.pl wrote: And one should not forget about performance. C++ was for a long time behind C, and even now some parts (like iostreams) should be avoided in fast code. For fast I/O one must use platform specific APIs, such as Windows' i/o completion ports and memory mapping. iostreams in C++ and stdio in C are ok for less demanding tasks. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
On 3 Aug, 00:27, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote: Certain folks in the functional-programming community consider OO to be a 1980's or 1990's approach that didn't work out, and that what it was really trying to supply was polymorphism. C++ programs these days apparently tend to use template-based generics rather than objects and inheritance for that purpose. It avoids virtual function calls at the expense of unreable code and errors that are nearly impossible to trace. It seems many thinks this is a good idea because Microsoft did this with ATL and WTL. There are also those who thinks template metaprogramming is a good idea. But who uses a C++ compiler to dumb to unroll a for loop? In my experience, trying to outsmart a modern compiler is almost always a bad idea. I have the impression that Ada has an undeservedly bad rap because of its early implementations and its origins in military bureaucracy. It is annyingly verbose, reminds me of Pascal (I hate the looks of it), and is rumoured to produce slow bloatware. And don't forget Ariane 5 ;) I'd certainly consider it as an alternative to C or C++ if I had to write a big program in a traditional procedural language. I still prefer Fortran 95 :-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Why is python not written in C++ ?
In article f9e652d6-3945-4c18-92f3-b85b994fe...@k8g2000prh.googlegroups.com, Peter peter.milli...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 3, 7:42=A0am, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On 02/08/2010 00:08, candide wrote: I can't understand why any serious programmer mentions C++. As soon as I read it, I have to rush either to the kitchen to find a bowl to throw up in, or head for the toilet so I can talk to the great white telephone. With you there Mark - IMO C++ is an abortion that should never have seen the light of day. The idea of experimenting with creating an OO language by extending C wasn't such a bad idea for a play thing (by Stroustrop) but the fact that it somehow escaped from the Lab and people picked it up and ran with it on a commercial basis is just plain wrong! http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/98/May/stroustrup.html -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/ Normal is what cuts off your sixth finger and your tail... --Siobhan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
