New Python implementation

[Michael Torrie]

On 2/16/21 10:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Attempts at a universal compiler stalled in the 1980s (though there may
> have been some new developments since I stopped looking) because
> expressing the semantics of different languages is so very hard.  In
> fact, much of the interest in pursuing the idea came from benefits that
> would be derived simply from having a language's semantics formally
> described.
> 
> I don't think there is anything to see here.  If the author had come up
> with some new ways to tackle any of the problems, he would be telling> people about these, not saying "be patient" (and bad-mouthing CPython).

Indeed, in all seriousness if he is successful, I look forward to
reading his PhD dissertation, because it would be worthy of a PhD,
especially if he made some breakthroughs in metacompiler design.  His
comments don't give me hope, though.

Seems a bit paradoxical to me to, on the one hand, express a desire to
build a Python implementation, but on the other hand, mock Python as a
toy language.  Why bother with Python at all?

I wish him luck and maybe he'll eventually come back to the community
with something to show and impress with.