No. Why would it be a joke? Because it's a Perl thing? Because it doesn't acknowledge Python's obvious supremacy in the universe of languages? Because it admits that other projects sometimes have good ideas? Because it's a good idea to have to write separate wrappers around every useful library for each dynamic languague separately? Because Parrot isn't real? IMO it's pretty real already -- the 0.4.6 release supports Ruby, Javascript, Tcl, and a bunch more (possibly even Perl 6 :-). I wouldn't be surprised if Parrot reached maturity around the same time as Py3k.
--Guido On 8/14/06, Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:31:31 -0700, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >After thinking about it some more, IMO for most purposes ctypes is > >really quite sub-optimal. I think it would make more sense to work on > >Parrot support for Python. Sure, in the short term ctypes is more > >practical than Parrot -- in its most recent incarnation, the latter > >doesn't even list Python as a supported language -- a regression from > >last year when Python support was among the best. But in the long > >term, Parrot (like .NET or Jython do in other contexts) offers > >cross-language interoperability, and perhaps even (like .NET and > >Jython) automatic generation of wrappers. > > > > This is a joke, right? > > Jean-Paul > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
