In article <cagy4rcxxl8pos5zcwa4thcg0dhkyesoepjso4z05sz_pqjv...@mail.gmail.com>, 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. I just want to say that C++ has come a long way. I used to hate it, but now that it has matured, and using some basic features of boost (especially shared_ptr) can turn it into a really nice language. The next version will be even better, but one can write nice C++ today. shared_ptr allows objects that easily manage their own memory (basic automatic garbage collection). Generic programming seems like a really good fit to numpy's array types. I am part of a large project that codes in C++ and Python and we find it works very well for us. I can't imagine working in C anymore and doing without exception handling and namespaces. So I'm sorry to hear that C++ is not being considered for a numpy rewrite. -- Russell
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
