Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.python > #72543 > unrolled thread

Re: OT: This Swift thing

Started byNicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com>
First post2014-06-03 20:27 +0100
Last post2014-06-04 04:15 +0000
Articles 2 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: OT: This Swift thing Nicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com> - 2014-06-03 20:27 +0100
    Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-04 04:15 +0000

#72543 — Re: OT: This Swift thing

FromNicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com>
Date2014-06-03 20:27 +0100
SubjectRe: OT: This Swift thing
Message-ID<mailman.10640.1401823664.18130.python-list@python.org>
Swift may yet be good for PyObjC (the python bridge to the various
Apple libraries); it is possible that there is some kind of
translation table that PyObjC can make use of to make its own method
names less ugly.

Of course, I wish they had picked Python rather than inventing their
own language.  But Apple put a huge stock in the ability of their
libraries to make full use of multiple cores.  The GIL is surely the
sticking point here. It is also clear (reading the Swift
documentation) that they wanted a script-like language but with strict
typing.

It looks to me like there are a lot of strange design choices, the
logic of which I do not fully see.  I suspect that in a few years they
will have to go through their own "Python 3" moment to make things a
little more logical.

N

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#72586

FromSteven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info>
Date2014-06-04 04:15 +0000
Message-ID<538e9d7e$0$11109$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to#72543
On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 20:27:39 +0100, Nicholas Cole wrote:

> Swift may yet be good for PyObjC (the python bridge to the various Apple
> libraries); it is possible that there is some kind of translation table
> that PyObjC can make use of to make its own method names less ugly.
> 
> Of course, I wish they had picked Python rather than inventing their own
> language.  But Apple put a huge stock in the ability of their libraries
> to make full use of multiple cores.  The GIL is surely the sticking
> point here. 

What GIL? Jython has no GIL. IronPython has no GIL. I believe that PyPy 
has a GIL-less mode, although I may have confabulated that. I don't know 
whether Nuitka has a GIL, although Cython does, as do CPython and 
Stackless.

The GIL is not a language feature, it is an implementation feature.



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python


csiph-web