4 ms·

True, good points, but not insurmountable roadblocks, especially if more weight gets thrown behind it. I think the last two points can also be addressed by bet

by craigyk 15y ago

True, good points, but not insurmountable roadblocks, especially if more weight gets thrown behind it. I think the last two points can also be addressed by better caching, etc. Further into the panel, it seems like there is interest in having some kind of standardized hooks into the compiler, and Guido hems and haws a bit about that becoming implementation specific a feature, but really maybe it should become a defined part of the language. In one sense, I think if Python 3k had better function syntax/flexibility that might help a lot... then you could almost create DSLs. I mean function definition and application more like Haskell, or even something like CoffeeScript. I applaud that they standardized the print keyword to a function in Python 3K, but now I can't help but feel they should have changed all functions to be more like 'print' instead.

stcredzero 15y ago
In one sense, I think if Python 3k had better function syntax/flexibility that might help a lot... then you could almost create DSLs. Reading this, I'm a bit flummoxed. I'm like, "Wow, does the mainstream science/technical computing world still not get it at all?" Probably not, and on second look ,it shouldn't be surprising. Java also suffered from the lack of first-rate DSL implementation for many years. The mainstream expectation is still often that one adapts to the language, instead of adapting the language/libraries to the problem domain. Any language that expects to be used by sci/tech needs at least to be able to implement algebras without resorting to anything but ordinary library programming in the native language, and the expectations of sci/tech programmers should match.