From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200309150947.h8F9lgq3015867@ratthing-b246.strakt.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
To: martin@mca-ltd.com
Cc: lac@strakt.com, 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] g++
From: Laura Creighton <lac@strakt.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 11:47:42 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 36ed8bc6-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

	 >From: Martin C.Atkins <martin@parvat.com>
	 >To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
	 >Subject: Re: [9fans] g++
	 >Organization: Parvat Infotech (Private) Limited
	 >Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu

	 ><snip>
	 >This discussion also reminds me of Sussman and Abelson's approach
	 >that the language should allow programming in the style appropriate
	 >to the problem, whether that style be o-o, logic, functional, etc.
	 >The problem in using different languages for each of these styles is
	 >that intercalling becomes difficult. The problem with using the same
	 >language is that no current (strongly-typed) language seems capable
	 >of (conveniently) supporting the whole range of styles. I want a
	 >compile-time strongly typed language for other, orthogonal but
	 >important, reasons.
	 >
	 >
	 >Martin
	 >--
	 >Martin C. Atkins			   martin@mca-ltd.com
	 >Mission Critical Applications Ltd, U.K.  http://www.mca-ltd.com{
	 >/,/martin}
	 >

We're working on writing a JIT specialised compiler for Python.
http://www.codespeak.net/pypy/index.cgi?home  One of the people
on the project is Armin Rigo, author of Psyco.
http://psyco.sourceforge.net/introduction.html

If we are as successful as we intend to be, will that take care of
your reasons?

Laura