Jérôme M. Berger wrote: > Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> On 06/07/2010 04:35 PM, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote: >>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>>> On 06/07/2010 12:57 PM, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote: >>>>>> Do this in any dynamic language -> FAIL because looping is so >>>>>> slow that you might >>>>>> die of old age before it executes. Besides, who wants to do >>>>>> computationally >>>>>> intensive, multithreaded work in a dynamic language? >>>>> In python: max (map (max, args)) should have reasonable >>>>> performances and is *much* more elegant... >>>> I very much doubt that. >>>> >>> What do you doubt? That it has reasonable performance or that it is >>> more elegant? >> That it has reasonable performance. Then, there are a number of things >> that can't be compared such as figuring out the tightest static types, >> something that Python doesn't worry about (at the expense of precision >> and performance). >> > Please define "reasonable performance"... > >> I see such examples as simple illustrations "look, if you give up X, you >> gain Y!" - just coming without mentioning X. >> > Precisely my point :) If you look at the OP message, what it boils > down to is: "look if you do this the D way in a dynamic language > it'll be dead slow" - just coming without mentioning that the D way > isn't the right way in those languages... > PS: I should perhaps mention that I like D. I just think that spreading FUD about other languages is not the right way to promote D...
Jerome
--
mailto:jeber...@free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeber...@jabber.fr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
