Writing Python in Java syntax is possible with a semi-automatic tool. Programming code translation tools pick up about 75% of dynamically typed language. Conversion of Python to a statically typed language like Java requires some manual translation. The modern Java IDE can be used to infer local variable type definitions for each class attribute and local variable.


Translation of Syntax
Both Python and Java are OO imperative languages with sizable syntax constructs. Python is larger, and more competent for functional programming concepts. Using the source translator tool, parsing of the original Python source language will allow for construction of an Abstract Source Tree (AST), followed by conversion of the AST to Java.

Python will parse itself. This capability is exhibited in the ast module, which includes skeleton classes. The latter can be expanded to parse and source each node of an AST. Extension of the ast.NodeVisitor class enables python syntax constructs to be customized using translate.py and parser.py coding structure.

The Concrete Syntax Tree (CST) for Java is based on visit to the AST. Java string templates can be output at AST nodes with visitor.py code. Comment blocks are not retained by the Python ast Parser. Conversion of Python to multi-line string constructs with the translator reduces time to script.


Scripting Python Type Inference in Java
Programmers using Python source know that the language does not contain type information. The fact that Python is a dynamic type language means object type is determined at run time. Python is also not enforced at compile time, as the source is not specified. Runtime type information of an object can be determined by inspecting the __class__.__name__ attribute.

Python’s inspect module is used for constructing profilers and debugging.
Implementation of def traceit (frame, event, arg) method in Python, and connecting it to the interpreter with sys.settrace (traceit) allows for integration of multiple events during application runtime.

Method call events prompt inspect and indexing of runtime type. Inspection of all method arguments can be conducted. By running the application profiler and exercising the code, captured trace files for each source file can be modified with the translator. Generating method syntax can be done with the translator by search and addition of type information. Results in set or returned variables disseminate the dynamic code in static taxonomy.

The final step in the Python to Java scrip integration is to administer unsupported concepts such as value object creation. There is also the task of porting library client code, for reproduction in Java equivalents. Java API stubs can be created to account for Python APIs. Once converted to Java the final clean-up of the script is far easier.

Related:

 What Are The 10 Most Famous Software Programs Written in Python?

Python, a Zen Poem

Python and Ruby, each with roots going back into the 1990s, are two of the most popular interpreted programming languages today. Ruby is most widely known as the language in which the ubiquitous Ruby on Rails web application framework is written, but it also has legions of fans that use it for things that have nothing to do with the web. Python is a big hit in the numerical and scientific computing communities at the present time, rapidly displacing such longtime stalwarts as R when it comes to these applications. It too, however, is also put to a myriad of other uses, and the two languages probably vie for the title when it comes to how flexible their users find them.

A Matter of Personality...

That isn't to say that there aren't some major, immediately noticeable, differences between the two programming tongues. Ruby is famous for its flexibility and eagerness to please; it is seen by many as a cleaned-up continuation of Perl's "Do What I Mean" philosophy, whereby the interpreter does its best to figure out the meaning of evening non-canonical syntactic constructs. In fact, the language's creator, Yukihiro Matsumoto, chose his brainchild's name in homage to that earlier language's gemstone-inspired moniker.

Python, on the other hand, takes a very different tact. In a famous Python Enhancement Proposal called "The Zen of Python," longtime Pythonista Tim Peters declared it to be preferable that there should only be a single obvious way to do anything. Python enthusiasts and programmers, then, generally prize unanimity of style over syntactic flexibility compared to those who choose Ruby, and this shows in the code they create. Even Python's whitespace-sensitive parsing has a feel of lending clarity through syntactical enforcement that is very much at odds with the much fuzzier style of typical Ruby code.

For example, Python's much-admired list comprehension feature serves as the most obvious way to build up certain kinds of lists according to initial conditions:

a = [x**3 for x in range(10,20)]
b = [y for y in a if y % 2 == 0]

first builds up a list of the cubes of all of the numbers between 10 and 19 (yes, 19), assigning the result to 'a'. A second list of those elements in 'a' which are even is then stored in 'b'. One natural way to do this in Ruby is probably:

a = (10..19).map {|x| x ** 3}
b = a.select {|y| y.even?}

but there are a number of obvious alternatives, such as:

a = (10..19).collect do |x|
x ** 3
end

b = a.find_all do |y|
y % 2 == 0
end

It tends to be a little easier to come up with equally viable, but syntactically distinct, solutions in Ruby compared to Python, even for relatively simple tasks like the above. That is not to say that Ruby is a messy language, either; it is merely that it is somewhat freer and more forgiving than Python is, and many consider Python's relative purity in this regard a real advantage when it comes to writing clear, easily understandable code.

And Somewhat One of Performance

I remember the day like it was yesterday. Pac Man had finally arrived on the Atari 2600.  It was a clear and sunny day, but it was slightly brisk. My dad drove us down to the video store about three miles from our Michigan house. If I remember correctly, the price for the game was $24.99.  It was quite expensive for the day, probably equaling a $70 game in today’s market, but it was mine. There *was* no question about it. If you purchase a game, it’s your game… right?

You couldn’t be more wrong.  With all the licensing agreements in games today, you only purchase the right to play it. You don’t actually “own” the game. 

Today, game designers want total control over the money that comes in for a game. They add in clauses that keep the game from being resold, rented, borrowed, copied, etc. All of the content in the game, including the items you find that are specifically for you, are owned by the software developer. Why, you ask, do they do this? It’s all about the money.

This need for greed started years ago, when people started modifying current games on the market. One of the first games like this was Doom. There were so many third part mods made, but because of licensing agreement, none of these versions were available for resale. The end user, or you, had to purchase Doom before they could even install the mod.  None of these “modders” were allowed to make any money off their creation.

When making a strategic cloud decision, organizations can follow either one of two ideologies: open or closed.

In the past, major software technologies have been widely accepted because an emerging market leader simplified the initial adoption.  After a technology comes of age, the industry spawns open alternatives that provide choice and flexibility, and the result is an open alternative that quickly gains traction and most often outstrips the capabilities of its proprietary predecessor.

After an organization invests significantly in a technology, the complexity and effort required steering a given workload onto a new system or platform is, in most cases, significant. Switching outlays, shifting to updated or new software/hardware platforms, and the accompanying risks may lead to the ubiquitousness of large, monolithic and complex ERP systems – reason not being that they offer the best value for an organization, but rather because shifting to anything else is simply – unthinkable.

There’s no denying that these are critical considerations today since a substantial number of organizations are making their first jump into the cloud and making preparations for the upsetting shift in how IT is delivered to both internal and external clientele. Early adopters are aware of the fact that the innovation brought about by open technologies can bring dramatic change, and hence are realizing how crucial it is to be able to chart their own destiny.