Python 1.6 The balanced language

[Peter Schneider-Kamp]

Suchandra Thapa wrote:
> 
> Manuel Gutierrez Algaba <thor at localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> > 
> > What will happen in Python 3000 ?
> > Well, that balance will be broken and python won't make sense
> > any more. Sure, it'll be the same language : python. But, people
> > will experience __always__ some kind unrest, because  advanced
> > features of some of the families will pop up, and nobody
> > belongs to all the families. So Java-C++ guys will have hard
> > times with functional, Functional-guys will have hard times
> > with hard types...
> 
>     I disagree with you there.  Pulling in strict or static typing
> would be useful for large projects and wouldn't confuse anyone with
> with c, c++, or functional language exposure (okay, polymorphic types
> and parametric types would confuse c and c++ people a bit). The functional
> extensions to python seem to mainly consist of a few additions and refinements
> to the current features.  I don't see any calls for adding the more "advanced"
> features such as lazy evaluation or monads.

Lazy evaluation? Guido seems to be less reluctant to add this some
time in the future, if I channel him correctly (what, of course, only
Tim can do right<wink>). There has always been a lot of people proposing/
advocating lazy evaluation.

Monads? It took me almost two weeks to understand the concept. Anyone
seriously proposing to add monads to Python should have to implement
a Python compiler with Haskell monads first. Note that I had to
implement a compiler for a Pascal subset using *a lot* of monads.

> >Sometimes there are even technical drawbacks: if you use Stackless
> >python (corrutines), you can use Jpython compatibility !

It is not impossible to implement coroutines for JPython. It's just
hard (or impossible) to implement them efficiently without changing
the VM beneath.

>     I don't anyone including Guido wants to have python become an
> amalgam of Eiffel, Haskell, and Java since their paradigms don't mesh.  I'm
> not even sure how you would implement a pure functional object oriented

There are stranger things under this sky. E.g. a functional
language without lambda
(http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/madore/programs/unlambda/).

> language. Although, I think our BDFL would lean more towards a
> Modula3+Haskell mixture =).

Which only shows his good taste.

pure-functional-programming-in-Modula3-is-a-pain-though-ly y'rs
Peter
-- 
Peter Schneider-Kamp          ++47-7388-7331
Herman Krags veg 51-11        mailto:peter at schneider-kamp.de
N-7050 Trondheim              http://schneider-kamp.de