I am looking for Python 3 since then I only need to learn python 3 to program on Raspberry Pi (with GPIO and GUI), My desktop (with GUI), CircuitPython (with GPIO) and DOS (with ?).
So that is why I want Python 3/CircuitPython. On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 22:36, Rugxulo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, just to discuss a bit off-topic (well, non-Python) programming .... > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 9:09 AM Pär Moberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Is there a python 3 implementation for dos? > > I saw circuitpython and micropython and thought that they would be portable > > to dos since > > they run on quite limited hardware, but if there already is a py3 port it > > would be unnecessary for my purpose. > > My purpose is to run python 3 on dos. > > What exactly are you looking for? Garbage collection? OOP? Dynamically > typed language? What Ralf is referring is (I think) "batteries > included". Is the ecosystem (modules) what you really need? Would Perl > (we only have old 5.8.8) + CPAN work? > > Or is just any scripting language convenient for you? I'd (almost) > recommend AWK since it's a POSIX standard tool (and DJGPP's port of > GAWK is still updated and has an excellent included manual). > > Then again, REXX is an awesome scripting language, and Regina > (free/libre implementation) is quite nice. Granted, our version is > "slightly" old (same old story), but it works fairly well. I just > never bothered fiddling "too" much with it as I'm not fluent in it. > (But Howard Fosdick did release his full book as freeware nowadays, so > that might help you a lot. REXX is also standardized, aka v5, ANSI > 1996. But Regina omits the newer, popular, non-standard > Smalltalk-esque OOP of ooRexx. I'll bet somebody could rebuild that > with DJGPP G++ and FSU Pthreads, but who knows, never tried.) > > There are also some ways to run Oberon in DOS, and it's quite a nice > language, too. Not quite scripting, but it has OOP and (usually) > garbage collection. It's basically an improved (but simplified) > Modula-2, which was an improved Pascal derivative (which was an > improved Algol 60 derivative). Though, just to be honest, the Turbo > Pascal (and Free Pascal) ecosystem is more robust and popular overall, > even if that lacks garbage collection (but has other virtues). > Modula-2 isn't quite dead, but it's similarly somewhat obscured like > Oberon. (I wish I knew if GM2 will ever build with DJGPP. I am not > quite insane enough to try! There are other M2 compilers, but ....) > Ada is even worse supported (for DOS), but you can kinda make GNAT > work, mostly. > > So it just depends on what you want to do. You can't be stuck to a > single language these days, there are too many tradeoffs and omissions > for any one language to do everything (and the kitchen sink). > Portability can be very important. > > Other cool languages (well-supported on DOS): FreeBASIC, C++, Lua > > N.B. I don't know if you really care about standardization, and > certainly I'm no expert, but Pascal had two, Modula-2 had one, Ada had > several, and of course C and C++ both had several. But the BASIC > standards are quite unpopular and ignored (more than Pascal, even). > Most people use "de facto" standards (e.g. Turbo Pascal or Delphi, MS > QuickBASIC, etc). > > > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
