On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 08:21:03AM +0300, Moshe Zadka wrote: > On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Tim Peters wrote: > > At the O'Reilly conference, it was announced that the Perl rewrite in C++ > > (codenamed Topaz) has been abandoned. I didn't attend that session, but my > > impression from others is that they attempted to model Perl objects directly > > by C++ objects, and were frustrated by the consequent lack of low-level > > control. > As another data-point, I've heard from reliable sources that Topaz was > written to use bleeding edge C++, including all manners of weird > templates. > C++ I might be able to live with, but a very least common denominator C++ > -- otherwise you hurt the well-known Python portability, which is a major > strength. Tim himself stated that himself, in the very mail you half-quoted ;) C++ has some nice features, and it has a lot of (IMHO) not very nice features. Though I have to admit I'm not that up to speed in C++ features, I have seen C++ code do things that scared me shitless. They also have me wondering how efficient the generated code can be. Using C++ will hurt portability regardless, though. Not only because there are less C++ compilers than C compilers, but also because less people know C++ than C, and the *act* of porting gets harder. However, I do see some merit in making the current code compilable for a C++ compiler, and perhaps offering some extentions in the form of templates or such like Tim suggested. I haven't looked at that CXX thing, though, and I don't know if it (or direct extention code written C++) would benifit from a C++-compilable Python. In the mean time, it helps finding old prototype-less functions ;) -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4