Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #72543 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Nicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-06-03 20:27 +0100 |
| Last post | 2014-06-04 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.
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
| From | Nicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-03 20:27 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: 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]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-04 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