Article on the future of Python

[Ramchandra Apte]

On Tuesday, 25 September 2012 21:05:01 UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano  wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:26:19 -0400, Kevin Walzer wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > On 9/25/12 4:15 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> 
> >> Hi all,
> 
> >>
> 
> >> I though this might be of interest.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> http://www.ironfroggy.com/software/i-am-worried-about-the-future-of-
> 
> >> python
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> > Interesting article, but the comments of those who say "the only
> 
> > language I need to know is Python" strike me as a bit limited. If this
> 
> > is the case, then Python can never be moved forward, because it is
> 
> > written in C.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. 
> 
> 
> 
> IronPython in C#. Jython is written in Java. CLPython is written in Lisp. 
> 
> Berp and HoPe are written in Haskell. Nuitka is written in C++. Skulpt is 
> 
> written in Javascript. Vyper is written in Ocaml. PyPy is written in 
> 
> RPython.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those Python compilers are obsolete, unmaintained or 
> 
> experimental. Others are not. But either way, it is certainly not true 
> 
> that Python is written in C. One specific Python compiler happens to be 
> 
> written in C, that is all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > I program in Python, C, Objective C, JavaScript, Tcl, AppleScript, and
> 
> > I'm learning Perl. Python could *not* handle all the domains I target in
> 
> > my projects. 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are writing code that operates on the bare metal (device 
> 
> drivers, operating system kernels) Python probably *could*, even if it 
> 
> doesn't *yet*. PyPy now allows you to write real-time video processing 
> 
> filters in pure Python:
> 
> 
> 
> http://morepypy.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/realtime-image-processing-in-python.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if performance was irrelevant, you could even write an operating 
> 
> system in Python. A really slow, painful operating system, but still an 
> 
> operating system.
> 
That's what I plan to do.
But it will be converted to C/C++
> 
> 
> Given a sufficiently smart compiler, and sufficiently powerful libraries, 
> 
> or sufficiently low expectations, pretty much any programming language 
> 
> can do anything any other language can do. Almost all of them are Turing 
> 
> complete.
> 
> 
> 
> But of course, in practice languages differ in their power and 
> 
> capabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > For instance: if I want to access Mac-native functionality
> 
> > via Tkinter that isn't currently available in the library, 
> 
> 
> 
> That "isn't currently available" part is precisely what I'm talking 
> 
> about. Just because it's not available now doesn't mean it can't be made 
> 
> available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > I can understand loving the language and wanting to work just in the
> 
> > language, but it's another thing entirely to call Python the One
> 
> > Language to Rule Them All. (That's C, because all other languages are
> 
> > implemented in it. :-) )
> 
> 
> 
> I see your smiley, but that is factually incorrect. Not all compilers or 
> 
> interpreters are written in C. Many languages are self-hosted, that is, 
> 
> they are written in themselves, using some clever bootstrapping 
> 
> techniques. C is neither the most powerful, the oldest, the best, or the 
> 
> most fundamental language around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Steven