Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Python > Prothon 0.1.2 is getting close to Alpha [Prothon]

Reply
Thread Tools

Prothon 0.1.2 is getting close to Alpha [Prothon]

 
 
Michele Simionato
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2004
Peter Hansen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> My real point, though, is that Python programmers are perhaps
> above all else *pragmatic*. We'll keep using Python as long as
> it is so effective, even with its warts, while we either
> eagerly or casually (depending on our own nature) observe
> idealists like you who have the time and inclination to try
> to improve things. If and when you succeed, many will probably
> explore the possibility of making a shift to the new offshoot,
> and the Great Tree of Computer Languages will have expanded
> by one more generation. So don't assume that there isn't
> interest here.
>
> But, in the meantime, we have work to do, and Python is pretty
> damn good at getting out of our way and letting us do it. (And
> for the same reason, we appreciate the fact that most of the
> Prothon discussion is in its own mailing list, if I can channel
> the silent majority for a moment.
>
> -Peter


I don't know about the silent majority, but you certainly channel me,
including the point about "being pragmatic". Whether Prothon will grow
to satisfy the expectations is still to be seem, but I would certainly use
another language if I found one better than Python for the task I have to
accomplish.

Michele Simionato
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David MacQuigg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2004
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:37:15 -0700, "Mark Hahn" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Peter Hansen wrote:
>> Mark Hahn wrote:
>>
>>> "Peter Hansen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>>>> Why do you think you can improve on that,
>>>> (or even be on par with it if you're writing the interpreter
>>>> from scratch)?
>>>

>> [snip reply]
>>
>> Excellent reply, Mark. Thank you.

>
>You're no fun. I was trolling for a rip-roaring flame-war
>
>Seriously though I know those topics aren't of great interest to c.l.p. or
>people here wouldn't be using Python. They are of interest to some small
>niche markets though and we'll take what we can get. Thanks for asking and
>being so polite.


I for one, welcome any discussion of alternatives to Python,
particularly comparing languages like Ruby and Prothon that are
derived from Python and have the benefit of hindsight. For those who
are annoyed, just set your filter to kill [Prothon] in the subject
line.

For those with an open mind, I highly recommend looking at both Ruby
and Prothon. I don't see these as a practical alternative for what I
need, but as an eye-opener on how many of the problems in Python could
be solved more elegantly (or at least differently).

I don't see Python as the ultimate programming language, but it is
close enough that it is not worth the cost of switching to a perfect
language. The outcome I would most like to see is that Python 3
adopts some of the changes we see in Prothon (and a few from Ruby).

-- Dave

************************************************** *********** *
* David MacQuigg, PhD * email: http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) * *
* IC Design Engineer * phone: USA 520-721-4583 * * *
* Analog Design Methodologies * * *
* * 9320 East Mikelyn Lane * * *
* VRS Consulting, P.C. * Tucson, Arizona 85710 *
************************************************** *********** *

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark Hahn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2004
David MacQuigg wrote:

> I don't see Python as the ultimate programming language, but it is
> close enough that it is not worth the cost of switching to a perfect
> language. The outcome I would most like to see is that Python 3
> adopts some of the changes we see in Prothon (and a few from Ruby).


David, long time no read. Have you noticed that Prothon is ending up with a
lot of the things you wanted? The with statement now works your way plus a
number of other things.


 
Reply With Quote
 
David MacQuigg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2004
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:03:41 -0700, "Mark Hahn" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>David MacQuigg wrote:
>
>> I don't see Python as the ultimate programming language, but it is
>> close enough that it is not worth the cost of switching to a perfect
>> language. The outcome I would most like to see is that Python 3
>> adopts some of the changes we see in Prothon (and a few from Ruby).

>
>David, long time no read. Have you noticed that Prothon is ending up with a
>lot of the things you wanted? The with statement now works your way plus a
>number of other things.


Yes, I am very pleased by the changes in the last few months. The
explicit binding syntax is excellent. That removes the objection I
had to making the language classless. I also like the greatly
simplified scope rules.

My big problem remains all the "non-language" defiencies - libraries,
textbooks, support community, etc. For this to happen it has to be an
easy jump for Python programmers. The benefits of removing a bunch of
minor flaws in Python will have to exceed the cost of migration.

Maybe your approach is right -- go for the perfect syntax first, build
a core of strong supporters, then in the second release decide how
much compromise you are willing to make to bring in the larger Python
community. Even at that point it will be easier for Prothon to make
radical changes. And you won't have to waste time on arguments about
whether something is syntactically impossible.

I just updated my language popularity table, showing the number of
projects in each language on SourceForge:

Date C++ Java Perl Python Ruby Prothon
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
11/25/2002 4026 1994
4/3/2004 13148 11660 5441 3120 289
7/10/2004 13261 12137 5317 3236 303

What'even more interesting is the growth rate (percent per year):
Days
495 25.9% 41.6%
98 3.2% 15.2% -8.5% 13.8% 18.0%

Looks like Ruby, Java, and Python are growing the fastest, although
the numbers on Ruby are too small to put a lot of faith in the stats.
Python's growth is starting to level off. C++ is stationary, and Perl
is in decline!!

If I were you, I would think about where Prothon should be in this
matrix five years from now, and maybe modify your mission statement to
address the issues that will make it happen. Ruby has been out for
nine years now, and in spite of the high growth rate, and the pride of
all Japan, it just doesn't seem to be going anywhere. They can't even
get their Windows installer to share the machine with Python. The
"critical mass" for a language seems to be somewhere between Ruby and
Python. Anything less, and eventually it will die.

-- Dave

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Hahn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-11-2004
David MacQuigg wrote:

> Yes, I am very pleased by the changes in the last few months. The
> explicit binding syntax is excellent. That removes the objection I
> had to making the language classless. I also like the greatly
> simplified scope rules.


It is amazing how hard it was to come up with a consistent syntax that
allowed all that simplicity. It seems contradictory that it requires so
much hard work (and so much arguing) to create something simple.

Lately we have been working hard to add some complexity back in to it on top
of the simplicity. After all this we will have a class keyword and
Python-like directed method calls like you wanted!!! The new complexity
will be optional and only for people that want it. See:
http://prothon.org/wiki?pagename=DesignByContractClass

> My big problem remains all the "non-language" defiencies - libraries,
> textbooks, support community, etc. For this to happen it has to be an
> easy jump for Python programmers. The benefits of removing a bunch of
> minor flaws in Python will have to exceed the cost of migration.


That will come with time. You have to have a good new language first before
you can expect people to help you add support to it.

> Maybe your approach is right -- go for the perfect syntax first, build
> a core of strong supporters, then in the second release decide how
> much compromise you are willing to make to bring in the larger Python
> community.


I don't plan on compromising. I think Prothon 1.0 will make 90% of users
happy the way it is, once support and libraries are available.

> Even at that point it will be easier for Prothon to make
> radical changes. And you won't have to waste time on arguments about
> whether something is syntactically impossible.


I'm hoping the users will be able to use Prothon the way it is and do
radical things with it. Time will tell.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2004
Mark Hahn wrote:

> David MacQuigg wrote:
>
>> My big problem remains all the "non-language" defiencies - libraries,
>> textbooks, support community, etc. For this to happen it has to be an
>> easy jump for Python programmers. The benefits of removing a bunch of
>> minor flaws in Python will have to exceed the cost of migration.

>
> That will come with time. You have to have a good new language first
> before you can expect people to help you add support to it.
>


As a user of Python who is very interested in Prothon this point is very
important to me. Thinking about this, does Prothon have a mechanism similar
to Pythons import hooks, so in a Prothon program you could do somthing like

import python

and then be able to import python modules natively. (With automatic
translation of the builtin types). e.g

import python
import urllib2
....


This would greatly increase the uptake and people would be able to play
around with prothon using libraries that already have and understand?

Ben
---
 
Reply With Quote
 
Oliver Fromme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2004
Mark Hahn <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> [...]
> Secondly we are putting optional design-by-contract features into the
> language that have kept many organizations and projects away from Python.
> These range from type-checking variables and functions (using interfaces
> actually, not types) to classes (for contractual purposes only).


Will the type-checking be performed at compile-time or at
run-time?

Best regards
Oliver

--
Oliver Fromme, Konrad-Celtis-Str. 72, 81369 Munich, Germany

``All that we see or seem is just a dream within a dream.''
(E. A. Poe)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Hahn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2004
Ben wrote:

> As a user of Python who is very interested in Prothon this point is
> very important to me. Thinking about this, does Prothon have a
> mechanism similar to Pythons import hooks, so in a Prothon program
> you could do somthing like
>
> import python
>
> and then be able to import python modules natively. (With automatic
> translation of the builtin types). e.g
>
> import python
> import urllib2
> ...
>
>
> This would greatly increase the uptake and people would be able to
> play around with prothon using libraries that already have and
> understand?


Unfortunately Prothon objects are very different than Python's internally so
automatic translation of libraries will probably never be possible. Prothon
was never intended to be compatible with Python. Prothon "steals" most of
Python but is not compatible, just like Python 3 will not be.

There will probably be library equivalents that are close enough to make
porting quite easy though. The current re library is a good example. It is
compatible. Also the Prothon sqlite library uses the Python db protocol.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Hahn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2004
Oliver Fromme wrote:

> > Secondly we are putting optional design-by-contract features into

> the > language that have kept many organizations and projects away
> from Python. > These range from type-checking variables and
> functions (using interfaces > actually, not types) to classes (for
> contractual purposes only).
>
> Will the type-checking be performed at compile-time or at
> run-time?


The current plan is run-time. This is still a work-in-progress though.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2004
Mark Hahn wrote:

> Ben wrote:
>
>> As a user of Python who is very interested in Prothon this point is
>> very important to me. Thinking about this, does Prothon have a
>> mechanism similar to Pythons import hooks, so in a Prothon program
>> you could do somthing like
>>
>> import python
>>
>> and then be able to import python modules natively. (With automatic
>> translation of the builtin types). e.g
>>
>> import python
>> import urllib2
>> ...
>>
>>
>> This would greatly increase the uptake and people would be able to
>> play around with prothon using libraries that already have and
>> understand?

>
> Unfortunately Prothon objects are very different than Python's internally
> so
> automatic translation of libraries will probably never be possible.
> Prothon
> was never intended to be compatible with Python. Prothon "steals" most of
> Python but is not compatible, just like Python 3 will not be.
>
> There will probably be library equivalents that are close enough to make
> porting quite easy though. The current re library is a good example. It
> is
> compatible. Also the Prothon sqlite library uses the Python db protocol.


Could it not be done in a similar manner to LunaticPython
(https://moin.conectiva.com.br/LunaticPython), only slightly more
integrated, so that method calls on prothon objects are simply forwarded to
the equivalent python calls? It should be possible to write a forwarding
proxy, I was just wondering about the import hooks part, so that if a .py
file is found instead of a .pr, the proxying can be invoked.

Anyway, its not that important. Just a suggestion I had.

Cheers,

Ben
---
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to close a TCP socket? (TCPSocket#close doesn't close it) IƱaki Baz Castillo Ruby 7 01-12-2010 01:32 PM
Prothon gets Major Facelift in Vers 0.1.0 [Prothon] Mark Hahn Python 41 05-27-2004 03:06 PM
Re: Prothon, metaclasses, Zope [Was: A 'Python like' language] Aahz Python 12 04-05-2004 03:48 AM
Re: Prothon Prototypes vs Python Classes Joe Mason Python 2 04-01-2004 03:36 PM
Re: [OT] Top posting is a PITA [was : Prothon Prototypes vs PythonClasses] Michael Python 2 04-01-2004 03:11 AM



Advertisments