On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 11:09 PM, David Cournapeau <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Sturla Molden <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > In an ideal world, we would have a better language than C++ that can >> be spit out as > C for portability. >> >> What about a statically typed Python? (That is, not Cython.) We just >> need to make the compiler :-) > > There are better languages than C++ that has most of the technical > benefits stated in this discussion (rust and D being the most > "obvious" ones), but whose usage is unrealistic today for various > reasons: knowledge, availability on "esoteric" platforms, etc… A new > language is completely ridiculous.
Off-topic: rust is an obvious one? That makes my day, Graydon is an old friend and collaborator :-). But FYI, it wouldn't be relevant anyway; its emphasis on concurrency means that it can easily call C, but you can't really call it from C -- it needs to "own" the overall runtime. And I failed to convince him to add numerical-array-relevant features like operator overloading to make it more convenient for numerical programmers attracted by the concurrency support :-(. There are some very small values of "new language" that might be relevant alternatives, like -- if templates are the big draw for C++, then making the existing code generators suck less might do just as well, while avoiding the build system and portability hassles of C++. *shrug* -- Nathaniel _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
