Jelle Feringa // EZCT / Paris wrote:
After reading about extending python with C/Fortran in the excellent
Python Scripting for Computational Science book by Hans Langtangen,
I'm wondering whether there's not a more pythonic way of extending
python. And frankly I think there is: OCAML
There
Jelle == Jelle Feringa // EZCT / Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jelle After reading about extending python with C/Fortran in the
Jelle excellent Python Scripting for Computational Science book
Jelle by Hans Langtangen, I'm wondering whether there's not a
Jelle more pythonic way
Hi !
OCAML is very complementary at Python :
unreadable vs readable
functionnel vs procedural/POO/etc.
compiled vs interpreted (or compil JIT)
very fast vs mean velocity
hard to learn vs easy to easy to learn
Yes, OCAML is very complementary, too much, much too,
H. Not familiar with erlang at all...
Subject: Re: OCAMl a more natural extension language for python?
Hi !
OCAML is very complementary at Python :
unreadable vs readable
That's depending on how you compare; I find OCAML quite readable
compared to C / Fortran
