| ▲ | pjmlp a day ago |
| I rather find tragic that contrary to other dynamic languages, Python seems to fall under the curse of rewriting bindings into C and C++, or nowadays more fashionable Rust. And yes, Smalltalk, Self and various Lisp variants are just as dynamic. |
|
| ▲ | woodruffw a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Why is it tragic? It's more or less idiomatic in Python to put the hot or performance-sensitive paths of a package in native code; Rust has arguably made that into a much safer practice. |
| |
| ▲ | pjmlp 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because it forces mastering two languages, or depending on third party developers for anything that matters beyond basic OS scripting tasks. It became idiomatic as there was no other alternative. | | |
| ▲ | woodruffw 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | You don’t have to master Rust to use this, the same way you don’t have to master C to use all of the critical extensions written in it. (Besides, no language has this regardless of native extensions: a huge part of Python’s success comes from the fact that there isn’t a perfect graph of competencies in the community, and instead that community members provide high quality abstractions over their respective competencies.) | | |
| ▲ | pjmlp 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Assuming someone else fixes the issues that might come up. One of the pain points from Python is exactly native libraries and getting them compiled. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | foolswisdom a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It's part of the original selling points of python, so it's not surprising that we've never stopped doing it. |
| |
| ▲ | pjmlp 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | As someone that has been using Python since version 1.6 that was certainly not one of the original selling points. Rather being a better Perl for UNIX scripts and Zope CMS, there was no other reason to use Python in 2000. |
|
