I may be the only one who does not deal well with a condescending attitude.
I have to wonder what international standards body ever completes a task in finite time, only to find the real world has moved on. Having standards can be a great idea. When the standard does not properly describe any implementations either because some leave out things and others have partial or enhanced implementations, then it is just a goal. May I ask if the proposed product itself needs standardization? Since it claims to support many (or amusingly ANY) language fully, perhaps they can share their Ada or other version before they do Python, or are they working on all of them at once? Realistically, many languages have chosen various paths and a model that captures them all will have to be fairly complex and perhaps needlessly complex. Does it need multiple ways to deal with issues like scope and perhaps keep track of that if a program crosses several boundaries? Will it be able to handle something like an R program running a package that allows a parallel running of a Python program as they work jointly on the same or copied data structures? I have been writing those lately and in the future may incorporate additional languages to take advantage of the strengths and features of each while avoiding the weaknesses or missing aspects of another. Anyone who considers the task specified to be a small problem is either brilliant or perhaps not well informed. If they can do what they say well, great. But I have seen other such attempts such as finding a way to translate between word processor formats that try to deal with overlapping but different concepts and do imperfect translations. That may of course not be relevant here if what is produced is code that runs and yet follows the expected rules as if it was being interpreted. But a more pleasant attitude may make the same points, not that I am sure what those are and what is being asked. It sounds more like being told. -----Original Message----- From: Python-list <python-list-bounces+avigross=verizon....@python.org> On Behalf Of Mr Flibble Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 1:15 PM To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: New Python implementation On 11/02/2021 18:06, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 5:01 AM Mr Flibble > <flib...@i42.removethisbit.co.uk> wrote: >> >> On 11/02/2021 16:31, Dan Stromberg wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 4:35 AM Mr Flibble >>> <flib...@i42.removethisbit.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>> I am starting work on creating a new Python implementation from >>>> scratch using "neos" my universal compiler that can compile any >>>> programming language. I envision this implementation to be >>>> significantly faster than the currently extant Python >>>> implementations (which isn't a stretch given how poorly they perform). >>>> >>> >>> I'd like to encourage you to give this a go. It's a huge task, but >>> it's needed. >> >> Actually it is a relatively small task due to the neos universal compiler's >> architectural design. If it was a large task I wouldn't be doing it. >> >>> >>> You may be interested in the approaches of Pypy, Cython, Shedskin >>> and Nuitka. >> >> I am not particularly interested in any of the existing implementations as >> they bear no relation to the design of my language agnostic universal >> compiler, runtime, VM and JIT; the only use they will have will be to >> disambiguate certain Python language constructs that I cannot disambiguate >> from documentation alone: this is a natural consequence of Python not being >> standardized; those steering the language need to grow a pair and get Python >> standardized preferably as an ISO Standard. >> > > You keep insulting Python and the Python devs. Put up or shut up - > show some actual code before you make too many boasts. > > Python DOES have a strong language specification. Its semantics are > documented. If you find places where the documentation is lacking, > point them out specifically, don't FUD your way through. For a language to transition from "toy" status it has to be formally standardized. It is unacceptable to define a language in terms of a particular implementation. A git repo of Source code and associated observable dynamic behaviour when that code is compiled and ran is a poor substitute for an official ISO Standard. /Flibble -- 😎 -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
