Why is python not written in C++ ?
in [Python]
|
From: Roy Smith on 4 Aug 2010 22:56 In article <i3cqia$82r$2(a)lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message <i3bseh$kfm$1(a)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.
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 5 Aug 2010 06:33 In message <7xocdi56cp.fsf(a)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 K&R 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?
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 5 Aug 2010 06:34 In message <roy-6BCFA7.22564104082010(a)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.
From: Paul Rudin on 5 Aug 2010 07:20 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> writes: > In message <roy-6BCFA7.22564104082010(a)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 :))
From: Edward Diener on 5 Aug 2010 11:31
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. |