Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2

References	<CAMjeLr_eJf1Aboz=2+oti4TOV=oejUYVo7K4zks+Ck4CSHaqpg@mail.gmail.com> <5167F327.3030803@nedbatchelder.com> <CAMjeLr8+pr12+0mN0SOrtg9ZTkNq=PiqxWyqB8CxpJ0BT=sxJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date	2013-04-13 16:55 +1000
Subject	Re: Message passing syntax for objects \| OOPv2
From	Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.548.1365836153.3114.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mark, this proposal is out of place on a Python list, because it proposes an
>> object methodology radically different from any that is implemented in
>> Python now, or is even remotely likely to be implemented in Python in the
>> future.
>
> Wow, you guys are a bunch of ninnies.  I'm going to find some
> theoretical folks....

Allow me to offer a serious suggestion: Just as C++ was originally
implemented as a preprocessor that produced C code (Cfront), implement
your language as a preprocessor that outputs Python (Pyfront?). Then
you can explore your ideas relatively cheaply (since you don't have to
implement a whole language) and portably (especially if you write your
front-end in Python itself)... and, most importantly, you'll have
*code* to show people, instead of half-baked theories.

Get some real solid code, then start demonstrating how your new system
is more expressive, or clearer, or what-have-you. It's much more
effective when you can discuss something that actually exists.

ChrisA

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-13 16:55 +1000

csiph-web