32 ms·

> Supports almost full Python 3 syntax, including yield (compiles 99.99% of the Python 3 standard library). What parts of Python 3 syntax are missing? Which pa

> Supports almost full Python 3 syntax, including yield (compiles 99.99% of the Python 3 standard library). What parts of Python 3 syntax are missing? Which parts of the library don't compile?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- michaelhoffman 12y ago
  Yeah, I actually spent a few minutes checking out that site before asking this question and the answer is not anywhere obvious.
- VeejayRampay 12y ago
  I am not sure what you went for with this, but it really strikes the reader as over the top and condescending, no need for that in a discussion thread about a programming language. There are people reading those pages who are thinking of engaging the programming community and behavior like this really gives a bad impression.
  - hrttrht 12y ago
    wtf?
maxerickson 12y ago
It's discussed some here: https://github.com/micropython/micropython/wiki/Differences https://github.com/micropython/micropython/wiki/Differences But I guess they are still in the process of writing that/filling it out. The biggest difference listed is probably no Unicode. Another significant point is that lots of library functions are only partially implemented.
- AceJohnny2 12y ago
  > The biggest difference listed is probably no Unicode. Funny, considering that was the core reason for Python3 in the first place (though I can't immediately come up with a reference).
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    This is sort of the design document for Python 3: http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3100/ http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3100/ Along with this one: http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3000/ http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3000/ (Of course there was lots and lots of thought and discussion that is not reflected in those documents) I would characterize the Unicode/bytes change to simply be the most visible and disruptive change, it didn't really stand apart as far as being a reason, it was one of many.
    - AceJohnny2 12y ago
      From what I remember from various posts, most other changes could be done gradually on the 2.x branch. Unicode couldn't. I may be mischaracterising it :) That said, I suppose it's wise to base MicroPython on the "live" branch of Python (3.x), not the legacy one (2.x), even if Unicode support is too costly for them.
- sitkack 12y ago
  Unicode will come, there are plenty of nice-enough implementations for Lua that could be adapted.
carbon12 12y ago
> What parts of Python 3 syntax are missing? Which parts of the library don't compile? The only things that don't compile properly are certain uses of "super()". super() without arguments is a very strange beast that captures the first argument of the function (interpreting it as the self object), and needs to infer its class. Other than that, all the Python scripts in the Python 3 standard library will compile.

> Supports almost full Python 3 syntax, including yield (compiles 99.99% of the Python 3 standard library). What parts of Python 3 syntax are missing? Which parts of the library don't compile?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

michaelhoffman 12y ago
Yeah, I actually spent a few minutes checking out that site before asking this question and the answer is not anywhere obvious.
VeejayRampay 12y ago
I am not sure what you went for with this, but it really strikes the reader as over the top and condescending, no need for that in a discussion thread about a programming language. There are people reading those pages who are thinking of engaging the programming community and behavior like this really gives a bad impression.
- hrttrht 12y ago
  wtf?

maxerickson 12y ago

It's discussed some here: https://github.com/micropython/micropython/wiki/Differences https://github.com/micropython/micropython/wiki/Differences But I guess they are still in the process of writing that/filling it out. The biggest difference listed is probably no Unicode. Another significant point is that lots of library functions are only partially implemented.

AceJohnny2 12y ago
> The biggest difference listed is probably no Unicode. Funny, considering that was the core reason for Python3 in the first place (though I can't immediately come up with a reference).
- maxerickson 12y ago
  This is sort of the design document for Python 3: http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3100/ http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3100/ Along with this one: http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3000/ http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3000/ (Of course there was lots and lots of thought and discussion that is not reflected in those documents) I would characterize the Unicode/bytes change to simply be the most visible and disruptive change, it didn't really stand apart as far as being a reason, it was one of many.
  - AceJohnny2 12y ago
    From what I remember from various posts, most other changes could be done gradually on the 2.x branch. Unicode couldn't. I may be mischaracterising it :) That said, I suppose it's wise to base MicroPython on the "live" branch of Python (3.x), not the legacy one (2.x), even if Unicode support is too costly for them.
sitkack 12y ago
Unicode will come, there are plenty of nice-enough implementations for Lua that could be adapted.

carbon12 12y ago

> What parts of Python 3 syntax are missing? Which parts of the library don't compile? The only things that don't compile properly are certain uses of "super()". super() without arguments is a very strange beast that captures the first argument of the function (interpreting it as the self object), and needs to infer its class. Other than that, all the Python scripts in the Python 3 standard library will compile.