On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 08:13:13AM -0500, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: > On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 12:56:48AM -0500, Michael Pobega wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 08:20:30PM -0500, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 11:40:29AM -0500, Michael Pobega wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 09:39:20AM -0500, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Abdelkader Belahcene wrote: > > > > This is why I'm transitioning to Ada. If I have to port anyway, I may > > > as well port to a compiled language. Ada was written as a standard long > > > before the first compiler was done, then the compilers had to meet the > > > standard. Ada programs are totally portable from one machine to another > > > (unless, of course, you import a non-Ada function that is not the same > > > on all machines). Ada is designed to allow for the long-term > > > maintenance of programs. > > > > also, you can just compile your Python code and you won't run into that > > problem. > > Someone has a python compiler (*.py to an executable)? Yes, I know that > python *.py modules get "compiled" into *.pyc byte-code but that still > has to go through the python interpreter. Also, what happens in 10 > years when I want to make a slight change to a program? > > Doug. > Well, to be fair, who is really to say the compiler will go missing? I've never heard of a popular language's compiler/interpretor going missing, especially considering that every Linux distribution mirrors it. I bet that in ten years Debian will still have a legacy package for Python 2.x interpreters. -- http://pobega.wordpress.com http://identica/pobega
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature