3 ms·
I agree with all of these and it makes me wonder as I do from time to time, has anyone managed to make a viable P#, a clean break which retains most of what mo
by aaroninsf 2y ago
I agree with all of these and it makes me wonder as I do from time to time,
has anyone managed to make a viable P#, a clean break which retains most of what most people love about the language and environment; and cheerfully asserts new and immutable change in things like <the technical parts of the above>.
When I have looked into this it seems people can't help but improve one-more-thing or one-other-thing and end up just enjoying vaguely-pythonic language design.
- aaroninsf 2y agoGoogling P# led me to this delight which is 100% unrelated: https://couragetotremble.blog/2007/08/09/p-language/ https://couragetotremble.blog/2007/08/09/p-language/
- graemep 2y agoIronPython? The problem with that is compatibility with, and easy access to, existing libraries which is the main reason to use Python in the first place. I also think some of the criticisms in the GP comment are not accurate. most of the valuable libraries are native compiled? Some important ones are, but not all. I think a lot of the problem is that Python's usage has changed. Its great for a wide range of uses (scripting, web apps and other server stuff, even GUIs) but its really not a great match for scientific computing and the like but has become widely used there because it is easy to learn (and has lots of libraries for that now!).