Why is python not written in C++ ?
in [Python]
|
From: Paul Rubin on 4 Aug 2010 19:02 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> writes: > > The Ada 2012 Language Reference Manual is 860 pages ... > Yeah, unfortunately the language was designed by a committee ... > It seems apt to describe the resulting design as “bulletproof”, but > “elegant” or “concise” ... not so much. I'd say the Ada standardizers went to a great deal of trouble to specify and document stuff that other languages simply leave undefined, leaving developers relying on implementation-specific behavior that's not part of the standard. Ada itself is not necessarily more complicated.
From: Grant Edwards on 4 Aug 2010 19:04 On 2010-08-04, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message <i3bseh$kfm$1(a)reader1.panix.com>, Grant Edwards wrote: > >> The problem has nothing to do with the relative merits of the >> languages. The problem is inertia. > > So how was C++ able to get popular in the first place? Building on C's popularity helped. > And how was Java able to grab some share from it? Good question. Both IBM and Sun put a lot of effort/money behind Java. -- Grant
From: Paul Rubin on 4 Aug 2010 19:23 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> writes: > So how was C++ able to get popular in the first place? And how was > Java able to grab some share from it? C++ made improvements over C that were necessary and welcome for controlling the complexity of large programs, while remaining mostly upward compatible with C. Java abandoned C compatibility and added memory safety and GC. That got rid of legacy-related pain and improved program reliability and eased debugging considerably, at some cost in performance. Java was also on the OO bandwagon of the 1990's, which translated into good marketing back then, but is part of the cause of the massive bureaucracy and bloat in the Java runtime environment. C++ seems to have made something of a comeback because of this, and Java now has generics patterned after C++'s.
From: Carl Banks on 4 Aug 2010 21:07 On Aug 4, 4:04 pm, Grant Edwards <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 2010-08-04, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > > > In message <i3bseh$kf...(a)reader1.panix.com>, Grant Edwards wrote: > > >> The problem has nothing to do with the relative merits of the > >> languages. The problem is inertia. > > > So how was C++ able to get popular in the first place? > > Building on C's popularity helped. AT&T + Money + C backward compatibility > > And how was Java able to grab some share from it? > > Good question. Both IBM and Sun put a lot of effort/money behind > Java. Sun + IBM + Money + 90s Web trinkets Carl Banks (haven't seen a Java applet in ages)
From: Carl Banks on 4 Aug 2010 21:19
On Aug 4, 4:23 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > Java was also on the OO bandwagon of the 1990's, which > translated into good marketing back then, but is part of the cause of > the massive bureaucracy and bloat in the Java runtime environment. C++ > seems to have made something of a comeback because of this, and Java now > has generics patterned after C++'s. When I first studied Java, my first impression of the language was that it had a Prime Directive that, "other than single inheritance and being kinda like C, don't do anything C++ did". Not a bad policy, actually. However, omitting generics was probably the second worst thing about Java (the worst thing being the awful AWT design). Carl Banks |