Slashdot Mirror
Ask Guido van Rossum
This week's interview is with Guido van Rossum, a man who, as they say, needs no introduction. (Not around here, at least.) To learn a bit more about him, check his personal page. You might want to ask him about Python 2.1, which was released today. One question per person, please. We'll send 10 of the highest-moderated ones to Guido about 24 hours after this post went up, and will run his answers as soon as he gets them back to us.
Please mod this down. It's a fair question, but it's kind of uninformed. It certainly doesn't pertain specifically to Python.
(First of all, Python doesn't have ++ and -- operators.)
Even C goes through revisions. Some C programs that work on more recent C compilers won't work under older ones.
Any language newer than C is likely to have this problem, because computing (let's face it) is exploding. The number of standard libraries people want is always increasing. Java definitely has this problem. Just one call to a v1.3 API prevents your program from running in a v1.2 JRE. Likewise, Perl has new language features and libraries with each release. And so on.
Either you accept change, and you get all the benefits of progress; or you standardize on one Final version, and you get the benefit of language stability. Most people prefer for Python (and Perl; and Java; etc.) to keep improving. Go figure.
For your Debian box at home, I recommend upgrading to (at least) Python 2.0.
-- jason
Considering that you named the language after the comedy troupe, what's your favourite Monty Python sketch? Personally, my favourite is the lecture on sheep aircraft, but I suppose that's a discussion for another time ;).
Alex Bischoff
---
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
Of course, there's also JPython, which has fantastic integration between Java and Python code, and resolves the threading thing... so if yer extending Java code, it's really a no-brainer (IMHO).
There has been efforts, most notably the (currently inactive, I believe) static typing SIG, which would make it possible to make code that could be efficiently translated to machine code (also known as "compiling"). Static typing is by no means required to translate to machine code, but it would probably make that faster.
An interesting option might be something like Squeak did, with a subset of the language that can be efficiently translated into C (and then compiled). This is something like what the static type SIG was aproaching -- not quite Python, but something that could run in the conventional CPython interpreter, wouldn't necessarily require any knowledge of C or assembly, but could run fast.
Of course, it is also possible to simply compile Python into system code just as it is (well, if someone wrote the compiler). There is nothing that makes Python inherently interpreted. The problem, however, would be in the efficiency of that code. A naive attempt to do this would probably be slower than CPython. OTOH, compilers for Scheme (which have many similar issues as Python) have produced very fast code (on par with C). In particular, Stalin is very fast (though there are others which are very fast as well) -- sometimes faster than C. Python doesn't have any of the huge flaws that languages like, say, Tcl have in this regard. Some operations are difficult in compiled environments -- like getattr or eval -- but they could still be possible, or they could be left out (since much code doesn't use them). OTOH, all the best Python code uses them.
distutils fulfills some of the functionality required for a Python CPAN. I think it has reached a state of relative maturity -- it may be asked to do more later, but it does what it needs to well right now.
There has also been some discussion and implementation of methods to describe and upload modules, which would probably be included in distutils or something related when they mature. I think at that point, along with a little infrastructure on the web, Python will have its own little CPAN. I know CPAN does more than this, but not all that much more, and it's something that should be grown into.
I couldn't find what I was really looking for on the subject, but maybe this thread would be a starting place. There's more stuff elsewhere as well. This message (from that thread) gives a nice overview of what's necessary for CPAN, I think. And I guess the whole discussion starts here.
Almost every modern high-level application language today supports, and perhaps forces the Object Oriented Paradigm (OOP). Students are encouraged to define and use objects whenever possible. Python's standard library seems nothing but objects. Java is the same. Newer technologies, like SOAP/Microsoft .Net/blahh are the apex of this concept.
When I refer to the OOP, I mean the drive to decompose all programming into components, not necessarily the individual concept of having classes with methods and constructors and context-sensitive results, etc
Application developers accept the OOP as the only way and consider those who refuse it to be uncivilized coder barbarians. Clearly, one can only bring sanity to programming via the OOP. But what is it really bringing?
Most of the ideas that the OOP promotes are good programming practice anyway. That is absolutely not what I hate about the OOP.
In the very ideal cases, you can create a reusable object/module that other people can enjoy. This is very rare, though. UNIX is a good example of an easy to use interface that allows for massive code reuse. The Win32 API, while affording code reuse, has a miserable interface that makes Windows programming a chore.
Without going into a huge tirade; Modularity on that level is good. It's worth it to struggle with the interface, because the alternative is 100 man-years worth of functionality that you need to implement. On a much reduced level, trying to deal with the OOP just doesn't seem worth it.
The problem with the OOP is that it encourages all code to be tiny little modules with it's own unique domain, which helps complicate the code both visually and in terms of execution.
For every beautifully designed reusable component, you have a thousand more that are confined to a single project and do nothing but add complexity and visual noise to an otherwise simple idea.
The Objects Everywhere philosophy seems to promote complexity, rather than simplicity. The less code, the easier it is to understand, the better off it'll be. Python does achieve many of these goals, but I can't understand why the push to OO'ize it all.
Bad programmers can write bad code no matter what, and there's a vast army of bad programmers out there, but I'm not sure I've ever seen good code that employs the Objects Everywhere ideal.
Does this make sense? What are your thoughts?
Don't know where you got this, but he didn't start with Pascal. Pascal is *very* type-strict, but Python doesn't even require you to explicitly declare variables! He started off with ABC, a small language he had designed earlier for the purpose of teaching beginners how to program (similar to BASIC in that sense). That is essentially why Python uses indentation to denote block rather than begin's, end's or braces, and why statements end with a newline rather than a semicolon: Sensible and intuitive to a beginner, especially since it promotes good coding style (or enforces it, depending on your point of view), but a little odd for a programmer already fluent in languages such as C, Awk, Perl, etc.
Python is my favorite language, btw.
Actually neither type inference or static typing is required for a compiled implementation of a language. Common Lisp requires neither, though you can declare type information for greater efficiency. Instead of variables having an intrinsic static type, values have a type, and variables can refer to any kind of value. Typically the type of the value is encoded in the reference to it. So you might use the top three bits of a word to encode the type and the lower 29 to be a pointer to the value. Explicit declared typing information does help the compiler though- you can sometimes double the performance of a compiled Common Lisp program by using type declarations.
That's really the beautty of Python's whitespace blocks. Both the programmer and the parser are looking at the same cues for block nesting. I am sure you have debugged C code that was missing a brace (or worse that had one misplaced) but was still indented "correctly." Your mind thinks that everything is hunky dory because the code "looks" right. This doesn't happen very often if you are a skilled C coder (with an intelligent text editor), but it does happen. And it happens a lot with newbie programmers. I was teaching my little brother Perl at one point, and he had all sorts of trouble with braces. However, when we switched to Python there was no longer any need for him to think about which braces matched up. I didn't believe that Python's significant whitespace was a good idea either, at first, but I am a believer now.
I am not a vi user, so I can't help you there.
It is well known fact, that the latest versions of
Python has licence, that is incompatible
with GNU GPL. I know that RMS himself has tried to
negotiate to rectify that problem. But what is
current situtation? Do you see any chance to resolve the problem? How likely is it, that the
problem will be resolved?
Juhapekka "naula" Tolvanen - http://iki.fi/juhtolv
I am a long time Python developer and fanatic. I have long enjoyed using python because of its Object Oriented nature and its faster and more open development process than its main competitors.
While I believe Python is a great language, there is one thing that I really am missing from Python. Currently, Python uses a very antiquated reference counting method that is less than ideal. Are there any plans to re-implement the garbage collection mechanism for Python in the future? May I suggest using the more advanced generational methods of garbage collection?
Good work so far, and thanks for all you have done!
Jonathan LaCour
Developer, Student
Guido,
Python is great, and I use it all the time, but I have an annoyance that I would love to see corrected.
Currently, Python's standard modules provide much functionality, but are a mish-mash of submitted modules that are largely uncategorized. Java provides a much better organization and naming scheme that could be carried over to Python.
For example, when importing the Python HTTP modules (httplib), currently, I do one of the following:
import httplib
from httplib import *
Java has a categorization structure imposed to make things a bit clearer. I would prefer if this same kind of structure was imposed in python. So, the above would then become something like one of the following:
import python.net.http
from python.net.http import *
I think that this could really enforce a cleaner organization and make it easier to identify where modules belong, and what they do, just by looking at their organizational location.
What do you think? =)
Jonathan LaCour
Developer, Student
What other languages do you use? Why do you use them? Are any of them better than python? When can I expect Parrot to be released? ;-)
TheNewWazoo
Would you hold up the rewriting of python to use a stackless implementation because Jython or other implementations will not be able to implement it? Where is the line between pushing python forward, and holding it back so that it works nicely with everything else ?
Thanks for a great language.
Queues can be done using Python lists; linked lists could be done using tuples or lists. AVL trees and B-trees are available in persistent forms (through the BerkeleyDB library, for example), and there's a BTrees package inside the ZODB. PEP 218 proposes a built-in type for sets, but there doesn't seem to be much agreement on what people want from a set type. Some people want fast intersection operations and some don't care; some want; some people want an O(1) membership test and some people don't care; it seems difficult to write a set type that's equally speedy for all possible applications.
Note that Python 2.0 included a cycle-detection algorithm, so reference cycles do get cleaned up now. See the Modules/gcmodule.c file in the Python source distribution, and the GC module docs.
Do you have any plans to merge Stackless Python with Python? If yes, when? If not, why not?
Since the original question referenced VB and Kylix I'm assuming the poster wants a 'GUI builder' type of IDE. I believe the most common Python approach to GUI widgets is through Tk. In that case the question might be, are there any Tk GUI builders that handle Python. I don't know the answer, I'll leave the searching as a reader exercise. There are a couple of basic IDEs for Python, the Windows version even comes with the install. These are about on par with Komodo, faster but with different features.
Chris Cothrun
Curator of Chaos
Bleh!
Incidentally, Haskell can also use indentation to indicate structure.
http://www.acooke.org
I was asking about Guido's thoughts.
I've already downloaded the source and compiled it on Cygwin. Flawless and easy install.
Where do you think I got the source?
It wasn't from your particular link, however, but I thank you for your gracious help.
Thoughts on Ruby?
Given Python's more limited exposure to the commoners, I've had varying amounts of success getting companies that I've worked for to actively use Python. Those that I have convinced, have grown to love it, and all is good with the world.
What are the five most compelling arguments that _you'd_ offer to a company doing web development, system administration, etc... to use Python over other interpreted languages such as Perl, TCL, etc...
Thanks!
Nah. Not if you have emacs configured correctly. Unfortunately I'm in Windows right now (long story) so I can't refer to my own Emacs settings. If you have a non-ancient version of Python mode, Emacs actually handles the Python whitespace rather well.
And make sure when you move a block horizontally you make the block the emacs region then hit (I think) Ctrl-C then < or >. It's also on the Python mode menu.
One good tip for maintaining sanity in a professional Python dev shop is to have EVERYONE USE TABS, always, all the time. One tab character == 1 Python indentation level. Then each person can set their tabs to 4 or 8 or whatever space for visual display, and everyones happy. Just make sure peoples editors are set to keep those as tabs and not convert back to spaces. If you set up Emacs properly (very easy) then this becomes a no-brainer. Hitting Tab on a line should (almost always) produce the right indentatin for a given context.
Mixing up 4-spaces-as-indentation and tabs in a single file is a recipie for disaster (subtle bugs.) Aside from these issues, I actually like Pythons use of whitespace. I find it easier for long term maintainability not to mention the initial conceptualization / prototyping.
Email me if you need those .emacs settings to work with Python and tabs properly.
---
I was wondering: why did you do it? How do The Netherlands (or Europe for that matter) and the US compare? Don't you miss the good bakeries, cannabis and licquorice? Do you experience Americans as being shallow (I've heard that comment more than once)? Or is this just a case of "Cherchez la femme?"
That's a lot questions together, but I'm not so much interested in specific answers. I'd like to hear your general experience of US vs. Europe.
Han-Wen Nienhuys -- LilyPond
Is there any chance that stackless and microthreads might be integrated into the main python distribution?
-
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
In my opinion, one of the most awful features of Python as a language is the fact that it thinks of whitespace as a highly significant feature in programs, so much so that you always have to properly indent all blocks of code that are under a particular control structure (such as if statements or for loops), instead of having a 'begin'-'end' token pair to do the job, such as what we have in C, Perl, Java, Pascal, and almost every other block structured programming language I know about. It takes away the programmer's freedom to style his or her code, forcing them to conform to somebody's idea about how programs ought to visually look like. I've heard of "bondage and discipline" languages, but this is arch-B&D... not even Pascal is so anal!
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
So, my question is a two parter:
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
Python can spawn multiple threads, yes; but Python can only interpret bytecodes in one thread at a time. What does this mean? Well, your C extension can go about its merry way in its own thread, but the moment you are back in Python-land everyone is competing for the one and only interpreter thread. As I said in my initial post, it's a workaround. It is well known that Python does not completely and properly support threads, as Tcl (and many other script languages) does. Guido has said this is a deficiency in the current C implementation and will be addressed in the future.
Perhaps I could sum up the C API aspect of my question as follows:
JPython rocks. Working with JPython in Java rocks. When, oh when, will the C implementation of Python compare favorably to the Java version?
None of you who have worked with both C and Java Python can tell me that there is any comparison at the API level. JPython rocks all over CPython in that regard.
The Python interpreter is NOT multithreaded. The interpreter can manage, and spawn, threads, but when interpreting the Python P-code itself there is one and only one thread. A "global interpreter lock" is not multithreading; it's a kludge. Guido has said as much in the past, and hinted that this would be addressed in Python 3000.
Reading the Zope list, and searching the archives, you will see Python's poor threading support bemoaned repeatedly as a roadblock to scaling a single Zope process on multi-processor systems.
It's been a while since I've seen any mention of Python 3000--aside from the recent April Fools joke, that is. I love Python as a language, and use it both professionally and personally. But, Python's current implementation is lacking; the interpreter is not multi-threaded, causing large Python applications (such as Zope) to implement various workarounds that only partly address the problem; and the C API is rather...unpleasant. Working with the Tcl C API in an embedding situation is much, much better, IMO. Will Python 3000 address any of these concerns? Any information on a timeline, or current status?
It seems that you are personally involved in getting the new Python license GPL compatible so that Python can be mixed with code released under the GPL.
The Apache people seem to have given up on ever getting their license compatible with the GPL since it seems to much work to get the language about the trademarked words right. So they just accept that people writing GPLed software can never use code distributed under the Apache license. It does not seem to hurt the Apache project to much.
Why do you care so much about Python being GPL compatible? And what work should still be done?
I loved the original CWI license by the way, it was short and to the point. Is there any way to get that back as standard license? And is was GPL compatible as a nice bonus.
First, I feel obligated to state that I think Python is totally tits. I love it. Thank you.
Reading "What's New in Python 2.1", I'm curious about nested scopes. Given that name lookup has always been the cause of poor performance in Python (or so I've heard), it would initially seem that introducing nested scopes would further reduce the speed at which Python scripts run if you use this feature.
Is there any information available about Python's performance with this addition?
I have been doing C development for 9 years now, and I know a plethora of other languages including shell scripting, perl, PHP (for scripts). Now, each language uses 'normal' grouping for control structures (if, for, etc).
What was the logic behind creating a whitespace-based syntax rule? And why do you feel it is good, please refrain from the readability answer because that is all I get from those people I know who know Python.
I find, because of my background, it is much easier to read code that uses braces ({}) than whitespace because my mind automatically looks for them. After maintaining legacy code that extends a life span of 20 years from it's first line of code, I have some concerns about the longevity of any Python code. So, my second question is, how well do you see Python holding up for 20 years and why do you think it will hold up that long?
Thanks.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Why include a lambda form at all in it's current, useless, state? Was some Schemer holding a gun to your head, or what?
Oh, and many many thanks for a beautiful language.
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
More to the point, it's the primary reason (at least as far as I can discern) for not including the beautiful stackless patches into the core distro. Which is a shame, as Stackless Python is a thing of beauty.
Peace,
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
Let's not forget the language that made multiple dispatch popular (for certain values of popular): Common Lisp. CLOS is still the best expression of multiple dispatch around (although Dylan sure is nifty.)
Peace,
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
Note Exactely python now has ++, --, etc. how every they are a new feature, (1.6 or 2.0) thus older python implemenations don't have them. as a side now python is quite downward compatable I think it is almost 100% between 1.5.2 and 2.1 and not much is going to change between 2.1 and 2.2 which is much better than say JAVA 1.0 and 1.1, or even java 1.1beta3 and 1.1
Grey (Chris Lusena)
(It has to be asked every once in a while.)
Any movement away from Tkinter, and toward something else, as the pretty-much-standard programming interface for graphical user interfaces?
Any movement towards a Tk library that *doesn't* use Tcl?
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
(nor "State" for that matter)
Good call.
Do *you* think you need an introduction?
Bitchslapped. Neat.
I don't think that's feasible due to the runtime nature of Python. It would almost certainly require a type of "engine" to handle these features (think about all the cool things you can do with classes that aren't possible in C++), which isn't much better than byte code.
Programmers frequently praise Python for its generally clean syntax, its ease of use (as in CP4E), and its "Batteries Included" philosophy. As a PyUser myself, I have to agree that these are fantastic features.
I'm interested, though, in the conflict between library design and legacy habits. Would you suggest that C-isms like "popen2", "execlp", "sys.argv", and "socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM)" really belong in a "clean" language in the long run?
Is there any chance that we'll someday see a standard library extension that (much like Java's libraries) allows developer to program in English rather than UNIXglish?
Thanks!
--JRZ
In order to do this, you would need
either some pretty amazing type inference, or variables with declared static typing. There is some work on this (Types-SIG). The main change would be that you can't change the type of a var at runtime, eg
a = "Popsicle"
a = len(a)
would be disallowed, as a would be presumed to only hold strings. This doesn't happen too much anyway, as it is confusing..
I've recently come across Ruby and I must say that at first site it has all the features (after all it was inspired by python) that made python a success and some more. What are your impressions of this language and would you be willing to give up python for it or some other language?
Jilles
I have seen a couple of Java based Unified Modeling Language tools but no Python support or implementation. It would seem natural to develop in python based on UML, so this must be a large gap in the python suite. What do you think of designing with UML and implementing in python?
Thorn is an opensource UML editor written in Java with JPython scripting but no python code generation.
ArgoUML is an opensource UML editor written in Java with no current python code generation
Ethics II Axiom 2. "Man thinks." B. Spinoza
i notice that the release of 2.1 isn't signed or even checksummed. what will you do in the future to ensure that mirror sites don't supply versions infected with macro viruses or changes to the core? nobody has time to audit a 4 meg download, and everybody runs "configure" right away (downloading an executable and running it -- idiotic, eh?).
What kind of data structures do you want? Python has integrated support for dynamic arrays and dictionaries. You can get matrices and some other data structures as part of the mathematics extensions.
def perm(l): # Compute the list of all permutations of l if len(l) <= 1: return [l] r = [] for i in range(len(l)): s = l[:i] + l[i+1:] p = perm(s) for x in p: r.append(l[i:i+1] + x) return r
If that had been perl and the newlines had been squashed, it would be much easier to decipher, and it would actually run as is.
"We are not tolerant people. We prefer drastically effective solutions"
I have some friends that are extremely talented programmers that find python very difficult to use because it relies on whitespace for code block delineation. They're blind. With that in mind, is it still a great idea to use whitespace (not braces) just so the code will all look alike?
"We are not tolerant people. We prefer drastically effective solutions"
Sumner
rage, rage against the dying of the light
Have you actually used Komodo?
even compared to Visual Basic it really sucks... like.. REALLY sucks. I would be embarrased to ship a program built with that IDE builder.
--------------------
Would you like a Python based alternative to PHP/ASP/JSP?
Do you know if there are any projects on it's way to compete with Kylx or Visual Basic based on Python.
--------------------
Would you like a Python based alternative to PHP/ASP/JSP?
Is it possible to make Python as fast as C/C++? In particular, is there a way to compile Python into system code (as opposed to byte code)? If there isn't, will there ever be?
def perm(l): # Compute the list of all permutations of l if len(l) <= 1: return [l] r = [] for i in range(len(l)): s = l[:i] + l[i+1:] p = perm(s) for x in p: r.append(l[i:i+1] + x) return r
See the Python documentation for more information.
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
See the Python documentation for more information.
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
Very true. I guess Python and Slashdot don't mix. Interestingly, I'm fairly sure I didn't post this -- I previewed, not submitted. Oh well, that's what I get for following instructions... (and why doesn't Slashdot let you use the PRE tag, anyhow?).
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
I'm may be replying to a troll, but you don't have to use self. You can use this, s, or thisfoolreferencethaticanneverremenberthenameof. self is merely a convention. If you don't like it, don't use it.
"If I am such a genius, how come that I am drunk and lost in the desert with a bullet in my ass?" --Otto (Malcom ITM)
especially new REBOL/View.
Feel free to make it better.
I really hope this is a joke.
Lots of language names have been jokes or plain silly. C C++ C# Java
I recently started using Python and I now use it for everything, including an interactive shell. Thanks.
One thing I see in Python-land is that there is a tendency to implement everything in Python. I just submitted a design for a program that I want to write in Python and I used Sketch for diagrams, despite having CorelDraw for Linux right here. It seems that no Python programmer is happy with having a component written in another language. Many other languages don't interoperate as well as in Python but those programmers seem happy with mixing Perl and C, for example. Look at Zope. It has it's own web server. I know it's faster, but why do you think this is happening with Python specifically?
What use of Python have you found that surprised you the most, that gave you the strongest "I can't believe they did that" reaction?
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
I personally believe that Python bytecode is very efficent, take the case of Java bytecode, it is just as efficent, to over optimize it will put very serious constraints on what python does and can do, it is a simple tradeoff, the speed in python all lies in RAD.
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
You have all the data structures you need, perhaps your skills are lacking. A list is already given with you, with that list you can implement a stack, queue, etc using the existing methods! A dictionary is given to you, with which you can implement a set/hashtables, the only thing that isn't native is trees, which is very easy. What I will like to see tho, is a Collections framework just as in Java, that would be cool.
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
I think it is very wonderful, I can't stop talking about JPython, the best of both worlds, mixing python and java, coding with pythons wonderful fun interpretter environment, and getting to use stable java libraries. Saves so much time with the java compile cycle, yet, you can write your java servlet or a swing application in python. Guido probably doesn't care, his work is python, but this shows java's potential.
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
The most annoying thing in python for me, is when walking with classes, and having to reference all local variables and method with the self class. self.It self.gets self.annoying self.and self.I self.believe self.it self.reduces self.readability. As you can see, lots of "selfs" over your screen is annoying, I know that there is a hack out there to remedy that, but is there any immediate plan to fix that in the future?
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
Is there any plan to adopt wxPython (www.wxpython.org) as the GUI standard? The Tk interface looks butt ugly, and I am sure you have heard that many times, what do you see as the advantages and disadvatages for using wxPython over Tinker?
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
You should be able to remap any key in command mode with 'map'. .vimrc as
For example:
map % dd
would make it so that typing % in command mode deleted the current line. You can get just about any sequence of keys that you want in there in place of 'dd'. You can even put in control characters by typing ^V before them (where ^V is actually control-V):
map % ihello there you^V
would show up in your
map % ihello there you^]
and would change the % so that it entered insert mode, printed "hello there you" and escaped back to command mode.
I am interested in using the approach of prototyping in Jython and then extending performance bottle necks in Java. The problem with this approach appears to be that when moving to Jython I loose so much of the tool support available in Java. What advanced toolset support is available for a Jython/Java combination that integrates into a nice cohesive environment without sacrificing too much functionality in one language or the other? Areas of interest include UML, editing coupled with UML (think TogetherJ), solid graphical debugger that can walk though Jython/Java combinations (preferably remote as well as local), build system(ant?/make?), unit test frameworks (can xUnit be made to easily cross Jython/Java boundaries?) and application servers. The jython web site list different tools available but fails to provide much guidance as to which tool combinations work well together.
Python has no ++ nor -- operators.
v2.0 introduced +=, *= et al for conciseness
and optimisation.
Guido has publicly stated that ++ and -- won't
go into python.
Stephen.
This is the greatest contribution of the perl community. A true example of code re-use.
War is necrophilia.
Is there anything in Python that you would like to fix, but for whatever reason you can't (i.e. it would break to much existing code, everybody else hates it or it's just not 'right')? If so what is it and why can't it be fixed?
(BTW, I'm not saying anything is wrong, just curious...)
"Hey... don't be mean." --Buckaroo Banzai
KomodoAt Active State.
Best Slashdot Co
How do you see the relationship between jPython (the java implementation) and standard cPython (the original C language version) evolving? And do you see the advantages of either one (i.e. portability vs. speed) becoming especially pronounced in light of the recent trend toward distributed software (ala the MS
sean
Hey, could we get an interview with Neal Stephenson?
+-- (Score:-1, Moderator on Power Trip)
What is being done to resolve the current licensing dispute between the FSF and CRNI?
Does anyone know the speed of the unladen African Python?
There are two different issues here. One is standardization. The other is change.
Standardized languages change. In fact, during the standardization period that they probably change more than unstandardized languages. After standardization they still change, just more slowly. For instance "C" has recently undergone a revision. If you depend on new features from a new C compiler, your code won't work with older ones. C'est la vie.
It seems that (optional) static types would enable the creation of practical python compilers, and could also provide much more in the way of pre-execution error detection.
I've heard rumours that static typing might be in the pipeline for Python. Is there any truth to these rumours, and if so, how might they be implemented?
Fixing copyright
I have long wondered why the value None in python is named "None". It's pretty common in other languages to call that thing (or something very similar) "NULL". Were you trying to differentiate None and NULL in some way, or do you just like the way "None" sounds as you read code?
Do you see things in a similar way? If so, why has Python not evolved something similar or better, and what can I do to help it along in this realm?
I know first hand that you have an uncanny ability to remain calm and level-headed. I emailed you once a flame--it even contained several instances of "DIE"--that while done with some jest was quite insulting. Your reply was not only civil but combined with the fact that you even bothered to reply left me feeling quite embarassed (and rightly so).
What is your secret for keeping your cool when discussions get heated, particularly when techies tend to be very loyal to their causes?
I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
Don't you ever get sick of talking about Python? Are there times when you just want to talk about your collection of scotch-tape dispensers or your love of shuffleboard? Do you feel sad that people pidgeonhole you as "Guido van Rossum, the Python guy" or "Guido van Rossum, the father of Python", when perhaps you'd prefer to be "Guido van Rossum, the ballet dancer" or "Guido van Rossum, the Buddhist monk"?
In all seriosity (?) are there times when you overload on Python and just have to get away for a while?
-DA
Or for converting all your Python scripts into Perl.
damn, these things rock. where'd you get em man?
j pg
http://www.python.org/~guido/images/Guido@200dpi.
E.
-
-
This Post has been brought to you by the letter "E".
This review of Python IDEs by David Mertz is the most recent I know of.
How closely does the primary Python development team interact with the other language binding efforts (mainly Jython)? Anyone who's hung out in Slashdot seems to have a rabid attachment towards their native tounge, so to speak, and I've found it refreshing that the Python community "plays nice". Is there a lot of cross-pollenation(sic) between the groups?
Thanks.
For a video interview of Guido van Rossum at Python 9 check this out at Technetcast
Is Python going to continue using a simple reference counter a la Perl, or will it be improved to use a more modern garbage collection system such as the venerable mark-sweep or even a generational system?
s
g ement
I ask this because I'd like to see a real garbage collector in a scripting language. I was sorely disappointed when I found that Python was using basically the same crufty reference counting mechanism as employed in Perl, supposedly because it was 'fast and easy to implement'. But the deficiencies of reference counting collectors are well known, the most obvious being the incapability of a reference counting collector to deal with cyclic garbage.
The main excuse for using a reference counter, particularly in a scripting or interactive language, is that it is a simple algorithm and is very fast in comparison to other collectors. However the cyclic garbage problem is a subtle and nonobvious source of leaks in programs, particularly ones which have a long life and relatively extensive creation/destruction cycles.
A number of successful workarounds for handling cyclic garbage with reference counters have been proposed and implemented. One simple solution is to implement an 'ephemeral' collector in addition to the reference counter, one which uses a more complex algorithm such as mark-sweep, one able to handle cyclic references without problem. The collector is termed ephemeral because it operates only on regions of store which are not in current use, thus avoiding synchronization problems with actively mutating data.
The following are references to papers by Paul Wilson of the University of Texas, Austin. He has written two important surveys of the fields of garbage collection and automatic storage allocation, two sides of the same coin of automated memory management. I would recommend that whoever is maintaining the collection mechanism of Python spend some quality time with both of these papers and then follow some of the bibliographic references to get an idea of more optimal solutions to the automatic memory management problem.
ftp://ftp.cs.utexas.edu/pub/garbage/allocsurv.p
ftp://ftp.cs.utexas.edu/pub/garbage/bigsurv.ps
Another good place for links on garbage collection is the somewhat imprecisely labeled section on Memory Management in the Open Directory Project, http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Memory_Mana
Is Python ever going to include some form of metaobject protocol such as the MOP included in CLOS, the Common Lisp Object System?
A MOP allows a programmer to fine tune the object system implementation, adjusting such things as inheritance systems (multiple vs single), instantiation mechanisms (and hooks), class inheritance list resolution, and other details of the OO system. It'd certainly be interesting to see another language implement a MOP, particularly one designed for OO from the start, as Python has been.
The only major drawback to implementing a MOP is that the object system usually needs to have much of its internals carefully picked apart so that the ugly bits aren't accidentally accessible to the user, but the useful parts are.
One reference for CLOS's MOP is the following URL:
http://www.elwoodcorp.com/alu/mop/index.html
- Boa Constructor, free, still in alpha but pretty neat.
- BlackAdder, Commercial, still in beta.
I've used Boa Constructor to build some prototypes, while I have a few crashes from time to time in frame design mode, it's great to build a quick GUI in no time. - Wing IDE , commercial.
"Naughty, naughty, naughty, you filthy old soomka !"
Linked lists, queues, deques, priority queues, AVL trees, Red-Black trees, B-trees,graphs,sets,digraphs, and any other useful data structure that you would like encapsulated.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
Python is about simplicity of expression. When doing advanced programming it is nice to have a large set of encapsulated data structures. After coding a data structure 5-6 times it ceases to be instructional.
You can look up data structures anywhere, but developing clean algorithms takes "skills".
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
I love python for making quick hacks, but the one thing that I haven't seen is a comprehensive data structures library. Is their one in development that you would like to comment about or point us to?
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
When governments fear the people there is liberty.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
Jesus loves you, I think you suck
My issues are mainly with the lack of a good multi-threaded interpreter (damn global interpreter lock!!!). Unfortunately, it's my understanding that Guido & Co. don't really think much of threading to begin with...
Thanks for the reference, tho...
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
I've actually written a porn bot in python/glade ... "beelzebot" ... :) Its an automated usenet porn downloader/decoder.
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
When its done :)
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
Couldn't we just standardise on one and integrate it more fully into Python.
The venerable TK is good but looks out of place in a Python program. QT is execellent but will they let you package it as an integral part of Python?
I know this debate has been going on since python slithered out of its egg, but, I think the lack of integrated GUI is Pythons biggest (only?) drawback.
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
My mistake. I meant "+=", "-=" etc. operators. Sorry.
Are there any plans to set some kind of standard language specification that will hold for a while?
I learned Python from the "Internet Programming" book, and I love the lean and mean Python. Because of the recent burst of development, it seems to me that lots of new features are being stuffed into the language. Is my perception correct? Is there a danger that Python will forfeit two of its best features, simplicity and cohesiveness, merely to appease a few complainers?
I have experimented with jpython/Swing, Tkinter, java/Swing and Visual Basic. Due to some reason or the other I have always ended up using the last two options, though I always use python for all other command line programs. My dream application is a la java/Swing style Delphi + Python which ofcourse is as portable as any python program. Why is such a product not there in the market yet?
--> Your Wisecrack Here
While distributing python programs, if python programs are compiled to PVM (like JVM), why do we need python installed to run the application? All we need should be a bytecode interpreter for that particular platform. Right?
--> Your Wisecrack Here
In the upcoming volume IV of Knuth's TAOCP, Seminumerical Searches for Hoaring Triplets, he conjectures the following about the Theory of Programming Languages:
Along these lines, I pose the following questions:
Thank you.
What's your idea of the future of Python? Since the PEP process, a lot of new feature ideas have been put forward, and a lot of people feel uncomfortable with quick change to a good language (Python 2.1 is again excellent though, congrats). Do you think or hope Python will be finished one day? If not, isn't the alternative an endless string of added features? "Python 3000" was an idea of a sort of ideal Python that would be worked on, but as I understand Python will now evolve more gradually.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Oh, and I believe Guido has actually taken JPython into account into the past, he's written at least one evangelical article describing it as a good match with Java.
What's your favourite colour?
---
That's a great idea. Anyone got a ouija board handy?
---
What are the bad points in Python ?
What kind (or size) of project should not be written in Python ?
When should one use a different language ?
Thanks.
In 1998, you had written an article titled "Java and Python: a perfect couple", in which you envisioned jpython as a killer development environment, arguing that the complementarity between a modern scripting language (Python) and a modern system language (Java) was a natural continuation of what had previously happened with the huge success of the C/sh couple under Unix and of the VB/C++ couple under Windows. The Java/Python couple would become the next "perfect couple", more modern, and multiplatform.
It didn't happen. In part because Java still hasn't lived to its first expectations, and also because Python, although you still seem reluctant to admit it, is powerful enough to replace/rival with Java in many areas.
Still, the modern/multiplatform "perfect couple" language programming concept is more relevant than ever. What are your views/hopes on this today? In particular, somebody had attempted, with Vyper, to implement an OCaml-based Python interpreter. OCaml has most of the technical virtues of Java, can also please the adepts of functional programing, and, perhaps more importantly, has high performance compilers which Java does not have. Thanks to this performance gap, the distinction between OCaml and Python is much clearer than it is between Java and Python. So, if Vyper, or a similar project was reactivated and successful, would you support it, and would you consider getting involved in it, perhaps even considering dropping in the long term the C-based interpreter?
With the move away from CNRI, the Python development team now has private sector employers who presumably demand development time on their projects in addition to the Python core. Since your current employer does not produce educational software, one can only assume that you and your team don't spend much time working on CP4E. In fact, the CP4E page says "The project is now in limbo; we're still interested, and we're still working on IDLE, but we aren't actively pursuing the other goals of CP4E."
How important is CP4E and its goals to you personally? Was it just an neat idea to try to get funding, or are you personally committed to furthering the vision presented in that proposal? Should we expect to see you involved with similar efforts in the future, or are you simply happy to have planted the idea in other programmers' heads?
--Ever even think about mixing it up with Perl?
---
This
Except that Perl is more like a highly addictive, carcinogenic drug than a cup of tea. Friends don't let friends write Perl...
Although I'm open minded enough to look forward to seeing what comes out of Perl 6.
Ruby is nice, but it's not pretty enough.
I'm a happy indenter with Python.
The TAB key is your friend.
Don't fear the whitespace.
I've seen this attitude towards Open Source software, which can be summed up somewhat like this: "If people that advocate OSS want to gain marketshare they better play by the rules", or "I can't get my boss to use OSS in our department because he thinks it's a toy, and not a commercially viable tool".
I think that it's more the other way around. OSS I don't think was ever a movement to "take over" the corporate world, and I think it's been sensationalized to much as such. Rather, I believe the philosphy of OSS and the Free Software Foundation has always been more "if the tool gets the job you need done, use it. Oh, and publish your source so you can benefit from others looking at it, and others can beneift from looking at your code and learning".
Anyways, it's totally off topic, but I needed to rant a bit. ;)
-- Humans, because the hardware IS the software.
Hi Guido,
As a language designer, why did you decide to start off with Pascal as a base for Python? What sort of things did you like about Pascal's syntax and structure which helped this decision? And now looking back, has Python expanded and changed so much that you would have changed this initial design consideration?
Cheers! Chris
-- Humans, because the hardware IS the software.
I personally am a Python man myself, but only after attempting Perl on a project, becoming frustrated, and then writing the app in Python instead, in a fraction of the time (and NOT knowing Python at the beginning).
Python is gaining much ground, especially in the realm of embedded scripting. Does Perl stand a chance in the future?
thelocust[dot]org
In Python, indentation is the token. What's the rationale for this? Do you get a lot of flack from people who prefer the old-fashioned way?
Oh yeah, and since the Vim % command (jump to matching bracket) doesn't work with Python code, do you know of a macro to replace it?
__
Follow-up questions are:
What's your favorite Monty Python Quote and Movie?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
------
C'mon, flame me!
No sig for the moment.
You might as well ask Mother Theresa what she thinks about Howard Stern.
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
Mature AI programming platforms like the various Lisp Machines and Common Lisp have first rate interactive code development / debugging systems. This is because of the dynamic, reflective, interactive nature of the Lisp. C++ is nothing like that, so it has taken many years for tools like Microsoft Visual C++ to catch up with what Lisp Machines had in the 80's, but using millions of times more resources and not running any faster. Since Python is like Lisp in many ways, what kind of interactive visual Python code development and debugging tools are being developed and do you expect to see in the future? (Zope is a great example, but where do you see it headed?)
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
(1) who would win in a fistfight, you or larry wall?
(2) who speaks more languages, you or (that supposed linguist) larry wall?
(3) if you could eliminate one planet from the solar system (besides the earth), which one would it be?
(4) how do you feel about the euro?
This is kind of funny, i reckon.
When i program in C i have to write my own memory management,
and when i write in Python i have to write my own type checking.
(Usually it's an assertion at the start of a routine. It helps to catch me when i plug in the wrong thing, and also to document what type the parameter should be.
Otherwise there is just Python's latent type checking: namespace look-ups, followed by assertion throwing if the name is absent.)
So, what is more difficult: memory management or type checking?
Often I stick to C's bedrock type system
when i'd rather not have to deal with Python's ever shifting sands of types.
What are your thoughts on this?
Do you even beleive in having types?
Do you see Python supporting types in the future?
What coding style(s) do you employ to help with Python's weakly typed variables?
!#
The whole __init__ __setattr__ etc... lots of underscores, hard for new users to understand, hard to tell whether there are two or one underscore involved, difficult to understand whether or not they have special meaning etc. Could this system be replaced with say one leading underscore? "_init" etc...
:)
Yeah I know that would break everyone's code... but in the name of a clean educational language for everyone... please.
Interactive Visual Medical Dictionary
What Is Python? Understanding Them : Pythons are relatively primitive snakes belonging to the subfamily Pythoninae within the family Boidae. Boidae, in turn, is one of 11 families in suborder Serpentes, The Snakes. Within the subfamily of pythons, arboreal pythons with heat-sensing pits along their lips (green tree pythons) are grouped seperately from terrestrial pythons that have heavy bodies and short tails
(blood pythons). Each different type of snake eventually ends up with two names, one for the genus and one for the species. When isolated population exits that are still identifiable as the same type of snake, a third name, the trinomial, is added.
The term primitive indicates that these snakes were some of the first snakes to evolve. Primitive snakes display features that link them to lizards. These features include a rudimentary pelvic girdle in the form
of cloacal spurs, and lungs of equal sizes . Advanced snakes, like the rat snakes and whip snakes, have only one functional lung and no cloacal spurs.
Pythons are divided into about 26 species, depending on which authority you accept. Pythons range in size from very big (Burmese and Reticulated pythons with the potential of over 20 feet and over 200
pounds) to small (Children's pythons do not get much bigger than 24 inches '61cm' in length) . No matter what the size , they are all constrictors . Some burrow-hunting species have developed novel ways of
using thei coils to catch prey within the confines of a burrow but they are still constrictors nonetheless . Most pythons are nocturnal hunters and some species have heat sensory pits along the edges of their lips
to aid in finding warm-blooded prey .
Pythons Versus Boas : Many people don't know the main difference between boas and pythons . Boas are termed ovoviviparous , this means their eggs inside the females are surrounded by a membrane
instead of a hard shell like pythons . So when the boa babies born , babies break through the membrane to crawl away . Pythons are oviparous , this means the eggs are surrounded by a thin , parchmentlike
shell . Female pythons will coil around their eggs and stay with them during the incubation period .
Life Span : Over 20 Years But Much More In Captivity .
Their Orginal Habitat : Africa , Asia and Australia , North America (A Little Amount) . All python snakes are tropical animals . They won't live under the temperature 22C (77F) . Under this fact the areas
that they live must be near the deserts or tropical places like amazon . But mainly you can find them Africa , Asia and Australia , North America (A Little Amount) .
Pythons As Pets : Pythons can be good pets if you care them enough .
-- Floyd
-- Floyd
And the creators of South Park were INSPIRED by Python's cartoon style.
... what book would you bring, what CD would you bring, and what language OTHER than Python would you be using (assuming that your computer suvives the sand and wet.)
Apparently, Python has a gazillion uses, but 3D packages have been especially warm to it and I've read that it's particularly well recieved by Hollywood film makers.
When I think of Perl, I think web pages. Of course Slashcode in particular comes to mind. So, does Parrot have any goals regarding interactions between the web and 3D.
Perhaps you've seen that news announcement for the new Macromedia 3D tool for Director. I went and checked some demos on that and it was impressive animation considering it was coming over the web. Are there any possibilities that some combination of Perl and Python will produce similar tools?
How closely does the primary Python development team interact with the other language binding efforts (mainly Jython)? Anyone who's hung out in Slashdot seems to have a rabid attachment towards their native tounge, so to speak, and I've found it refreshing that the Python community "plays nice". Is there a lot of cross-pollenation(sic) between the groups?
Yours,
Bob
All the best,
--Bob
Two of Python's biggest strengths are its easy extensibility and its object-orientedness. When it comes to writing Python extensions in C++, however, I have to use Python's plain C extension API to wrap my C++ objects. While it's certainly functional, most of my extension code seems to be boilerplate and housework (e.g., validating arguments and keeping track of reference counts) that could be handled more transparently if Python provided a C++ extension API. I realize that there are third-party Python extension libraries such as Boost.Python for C++ programmers, but at this point I still prefer to use the C API despite its verboseness as it gives maximum control and allows me to make my extensions more "Pythonic" by, for example, allowing me to map C++ get/set method pairs to Python object attributes.
All of which is a very roundabout way of asking if you are considering rewriting CPython in C++ or at the very least providing an "official" C++ API to Python's underlying object model?
P.S. Thanks for a great language!
Ever think maybe O'Reilly makes efforts to promote colorful names? Makes their job of choosing cover art for the SAGAN billions and billions /SAGAN books they produce that much easier!
GTRacer
- Any week now...
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
Oh, the other Rossum.
Uhhh... I don't really have a programming question, I haven't gotten that far with the 'bot yet. Sorry!
GTRacer
- Long live Asimov!
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
yes that was/will be/has been/warll a problem.
What are your thoughts on perl?
Do you see perl as a threat to python?
Or are is perl just another tool to get a job done like python?
Fight censors!
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
What went wrong at BeOpen.com?
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
I began learning python at 1.5 and was really excited by 1.6 then 2. now 2.1. Without taking away any admiration for all the rapid work that is being done on the language do you personally target a number of revisions in a year?
Could Python ever move to an even and odd revision structure like Linux? Odd revisions for developers and even for businesses???
Bosah
Thank you very much for Python.
Are you this man? If not, are you in any way related to him, and could you please explain.
Hopefully this question covers the Australian fan niche.
Do you believe Python is a 'do-it-all' language currently?
If not do you believe it will ever get to that point in which it can be used for all purposes?
What needs to be improved for it to be a 'do-it-all' language?
Did you approve of the Parrot joke about combining Python and PERL?
I didn't especially like it, I think it hurts Open Source and reinforces the perception of Open Source software and funny and a toy.
I work for a large corporation, and it's an uphill battle to incorporate Open Source software. I'm tryin to move several web servers from IIS to Apache, but without my manager's blessing, it's hard. Jokes like PARROT make it harder for IT personell to make a case for Python or PERL being ready for corporate use.
I seriously think Open Source needs to rethink it's attitude if it wants to gain market share. IBM didn't became the monopolist it became in the 1970's by selling mainframes that made fart noises and having service reps wear joy buzzers, instead they had an image of an ultra serious, suit and tie wearing, dependable company. Now, I'm not advocating that kernel developers wear suits and tie for PR shots, or language developers don't chose more appropriate names (perhaps PYTH-96 instead of PYTHON?) but you have to admit such steps would give a lot more credibility to Open Source software.
Microsoft recently funded a semi-functional version of Python for
Do you have any thing positive or negative to say about this port? More generally, do you have any opinion on the language neutral approach of Microsoft's common language runtime (CLR)?
My personal opinion is the the CLR is neutering these languages. To you these languages inside the CLR, you have to use (1) common data types and (2) common class libraries. Those two items are major parts of speaking in a programming language. What you are left with is whatever bits of the language syntax that Microsoft (or the
Now, one thing that has been bugging me for a while is that Python only has one "official" GUI toolkit (Tkinter), even though there are a variety of toolkits available. Each toolkit has its own strengths and weaknesses -- so why has Guido chosen to only mention one of these toolkits on the Python Language Website ? It seems to me that by having a single "de facto" standard toolkit gives the impression that no workable alternatives exist, which will lead many people to conclude (as I initially did) that Python is unsuitable for GUI programming -- simply because the "de facto" standard toolkit appears to be the only one available, and was unsuitable for the particular project at hand.
Isn't this doing Python a dis-service? It seems to me that this idea of a single "standard" tookit smacks of a Microsoft-like attitude that there's only one OS/Word Processor/GUI toolkit you can use. With Python GUI programming, as with most things, there are many alternatives available -- each with its own advantages and disadvantages. So why not have a variety of supported toolkits, rather than supporting one to the exclusion of all the others?
Thanks,
- Erik.
Twenty years ago, many of the tasks that Python is used for currently had to be done in entirely in C because the hardware they ran on was so much slower. Now, Python is used in very computationally demanding applications (bioinformatics, high-end animation, and many more) as a glue for software written in C, et. al. With hardware speeds doubling every 18 months or so, five years from now, programmers will have 10 times as much computing power available to them. With the "performance issue" an order of magnitude less important, what applications do you think Python will be used for then that it might not be now?
With Computer Programming For Everbody on the back burner, what is your sense of the current state of Python in education?
If you could ask the Open Source community for one contribution to Python's continued development, what would it be?
When will Python support for JavaScript and HTML? I would like to use it and create PHP web pages for my Apache computer. Now it make use only for FrontPage plug-in?
Will Parrot maybe implement functions for array slicing? etc. array2@ = array@(1...3)(2..4) , that would be kinda cool .o)
What are the plans for the compilation of Python code to efficient executables? Python's object system is very dynamic, allowing anybody to add instance variables and methods to any object at any time--how are you planning on dealing with that during compilation? Performance-wise, how do you expect Python will compare to compiled CommonLisp or Smalltalk, which evolved along similar lines 20 years ago? And will there be a language standard, or will Python continue to be defined by what the C implementation does?
> Is it possible to make Python
> as fast as C/C++
In short, no, it's not possible.
I keep seeing people interested in a Python compiler to speed up execution Python code.
But I am dismayed by peoples on slashdot.org general lack of interest in Dylan, which is not only a WAY WAY COOL (TM) language, but a more powerful and more flexible language than Python and efficiently compilable into code that performs as fast as C/C++.
TK is the standard widget toolkit interface, but right now distributions and implementations are bundled with TCL on top of python : memory consuming, not so fast, and not so well suited. And some widgets are not present right now in TK standard distro. Are there plans to introduce a new (cross-platform and suited for python native data types) widget toolkit like wxpython as a new standard widget library ? Or an unified widget abstraction layer (read : specification) ? No Toolkit flamewar, please !