On 6 October 2016 at 05:20, Sven R. Kunze <srku...@mail.de> wrote: > On 05.10.2016 18:06, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> [runtime matters] > > > I think I understand your point. > > I also hope that others and me could provide you with our perspective. We > see Python not as a C-like runtime but as an abstract modelling language. I > know that it's different from the point of view of CPython internals, > however from the outside Python suggests to be much more than a simple > wrapper around C. Just two different perspectives.
It's not a question that's up for debate - as a point of factual history, Python's runtime model is anchored in the C runtime model, and this pervades the entire language design. Simply wishing that Python's core runtime design was other than it is doesn't make it so. We can diverge from that base model when we decide there's sufficient benefit in doing so (e.g. the object model, the import system, the numeric tower, exception handling, lexical closures, generators, generators-as-coroutines, context management, native coroutines), but whatever we decide to do still needs to be expressible in terms of underlying operating system provided C primitives, or CPython can't implement it (and if CPython can't implement a feature as the reference implementation, that feature can't become part of the language definition). Postponing the point at which folks are confronted by those underlying C-level constraints is often an admirable goal, though - the only thing that isn't possible without fundamentally changing the language is getting rid of them entirely. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
