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
