On 08/08/2020 18:18, Marco Sulla wrote:
Thank you, some features are interesting, even if I prefer the Python syntax.
What about the compiler? Is it better to "compile" to C or to
bytecode? How can I generate a bytecode that can be compiled by gcc?
Can I skip the AST generation for now,
On 2020-08-10 at 09:02:57 +1000,
Chris Angelico wrote:
> If you *really* want to get away from ints-as-objects, what I would
> recommend is emulating it. Some languages pretend that everything's an
> object, but for small integers (say, those less than 2**60), it
> doesn't store the object
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 2:46 AM Marco Sulla
wrote:
> This is another big problem: everything is an object?
> It seems that in practice, using integers and floats as objects leads
> to great slowdowns. And personally I never saw people that created
> superclasses of int or float. Anyway, if they
On 2020-08-09 at 13:07:03 -0400,
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 09:31:04 +0100, Barry Scott
> declaimed the following:
>
> >
> >By going to C you are really saying you want to use the native instructions
> >of your CPU.
> >Contrast that with bytecode that needs an interpreter.
On 2020-08-09, Marco Sulla wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 at 10:31, Barry Scott wrote:
>> By going to C you are really saying you want to use the native
>> instructions of your CPU. Contrast that with bytecode that needs
>> an interpreter.
>
> This is also an answer for Grant Edwards: the idea
On 8/9/2020 12:44 PM, Marco Sulla wrote:
Do you think py devs will be greatly bored if I link this discussion
in the python-dev mailing list?
Don't. This is neither about language development (and proposals
initially go to python-ideas) nor about immediate cpython development
--
Terry
On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 at 10:31, Barry Scott wrote:
> By going to C you are really saying you want to use the native instructions
> of your CPU.
> Contrast that with bytecode that needs an interpreter.
This is also an answer for Grant Edwards: the idea was to generate
bytecode and compile it to
> On 8 Aug 2020, at 18:18, Marco Sulla wrote:
>
> On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 14:10, Barry wrote:
On 7 Aug 2020, at 23:28, Marco Sulla wrote:
>>> My idea seems to be very simple (so probably it's not simple at all):
>>> a language similar to Python, but statically compiled.
>>
>> Have a look
On 2020-08-07, Marco Sulla wrote:
> My core ideas are:
>
> 1. Statically compiled (of course...). So if you write:
>
> var a = 1
>
> the variable `a` is an integer and it's value can't be changed to
> anything that is not an integer
That's "statically typed". It has nothing to do with whether
On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 14:10, Barry wrote:
> >> On 7 Aug 2020, at 23:28, Marco Sulla wrote:
> > My idea seems to be very simple (so probably it's not simple at all):
> > a language similar to Python, but statically compiled.
>
> Have a look at Apple’s Swift. It reminds me of python as I read it.
>> On 7 Aug 2020, at 23:28, Marco Sulla wrote:
> Let me first say that I don't know if my post is on topic with the
> mailing list. If so, please inform me.
>
> My idea seems to be very simple (so probably it's not simple at all):
> a language similar to Python, but statically compiled.
>
>
Let me first say that I don't know if my post is on topic with the
mailing list. If so, please inform me.
My idea seems to be very simple (so probably it's not simple at all):
a language similar to Python, but statically compiled.
(Yes, I know Cython, RPython, Julia, Rust...)
Since I've not
12 matches
Mail list logo
