> Also, several users have rewritten their Python programs in Flaming > Thunder, and found that Flaming Thunder was 5 to 10 times faster > (Flaming Thunder compiles to native executables). So again, since > many people value their time at more than $0, I think that many people > will find that Flaming Thunder is worth $19.95 per year.
5-10 times faster for what kind of code? I don't see anything that resembles OO features of python, let alone more advanced concepts like meta-programming, higher-order functions and such. Which save tremendous amounts of time coding. If FT grows these and *still* is 5-10 times faster, I'll salut you. And what is really expensive is brain-cycles, not cpu-cycles. Which above described features save. > Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more > motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python. This weekend, > Python users will still be debating how to fix awkwardnesses in the > languages (such as FOR loops where you're just counting the loops and > not referencing the loop variable) -- but Flaming Thunder users will > be getting work done using the REPEAT n TIMES constructs that I'll be > implementing. > > Python has been around about 15 years, yet still has those > awkwardnesses. Flaming Thunder has been out less than 6 months and > those awkwardnesses are already getting fixed. The difference: I > can't afford to ignore users. Oh *please*! Try getting nearly as feature & library complete as python is today - and *then* I'll point to all the akwardness of FT. Let alone it is very much a question of view-point if two different looping constructs or keywords are more awkward than one general looping-concept with only one keyword. It's a matter of taste. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list