On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:35 am, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 09/03/2016 23:14, BartC wrote:
>> (The byte-code compiler for the current version is written in itself. It >> can compile itself (some 25Kloc) in about 1 second (that's running >> interpreted, dynamic byte-code on a not-very-fast PC). > > Please answer my question, will it be tested against real world > benchmarks or microbenchmarks? The above paragraph, and several > following paragraphs, are completely irrelevant. Mark, Bart's answer is a very good answer. He has written a self-hosting interpreter and compiler. That is a good (although not perfect) "real world benchmark". I get it that you're keen to jump into the fray and defend the honour of Python, but Python doesn't need to be defended from Bart. He's just one guy, he's retired, and he has an interesting little language as a hobby. What's the threat? Don't go all Ranting Rick on us and think that the entire computing community is going to abandon Python for Bart's private and unpublished language. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I think that Bart's language sounds interesting. I'm not sure exactly where it would sit in the computing ecosystem, but if it works for him, good for him. >> The interpreter for the byte-code is also written in another language of >> mine, which statically typed. The compiler for the latter is written in >> the interpreted language too. >> >> I'd quite like to port either of these compilers to Python, to see what >> PyPy can do with them. (It would also be quite cool to have them in pure >> Python). But I've find these difficult to optimise, because they have >> diverse execution patterns, while PyPy likes loops. I'll see. >> >> A compiler is another good 'pure language' task because, apart from >> input and output at each end, all the computation is self-contained.) > > I've no idea what this is meant to mean. Then you shouldn't criticise Bart for his lack of "knowledge of computing" just because he lacks of interest in Unicode. As they say, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I think Bart is very old-school, and probably a bit behind the times when it comes to modern compiler and interpreter technologies. But that doesn't matter: the old timers knew a thing or two, and in some ways the old days were better: http://prog21.dadgum.com/116.html I fear that Bart still holds quite a few misapprehensions about Python. But he seems happy to discuss the language, and (unless he is lying to us and all his claims about his interpreter are pure Walter Mitty fantasy -- and I have no reason to think this is true), there's no doubt that he is knows what he is talking about in the areas of which he is qualified to speak. Does he know Unicode? No. Does he know compiler design? It seems so, which is more than can be said by either you or I. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
