> True. But in Python, you don't see statically-linked pure-syscall CGI > scripts being cross-compiled under Windows for ftp'ing up to a Linux > server. And you don't see the speed of pure assembly language > libraries. And I'll be willing to bet that Flaming Thunder will have > OO features similar to Python before Python has the features that > Flaming Thunder already does.
Your bets don't count anything here. These things don't exist, so don't brag on them being superior. > For many people, being 5 to 10 times faster at numerical analysis and > CGI scripting is reason enough to pay $19 per year. But maybe for > other people, having slow, inefficient programs and websites is > acceptable. Quite a revealing statement I'd say. And unless you don't show any real-world site running on FT that needs things like sessions, cookies, database-connectivity, unicode and a ton more of stuff FT doesn't support out-of-the-box or through 3rd-party-libs, I wouldn't mention "the people" as well. So far, *all* that you've been showing on your site regarding CGI are toy-scripts. Nothing more. >> And what is really expensive is brain-cycles, not cpu-cycles. > > Depends on whether you're the programmer, or the customer. I've found > that customers prefer products that are 5 to 10 times faster, instead > of products that were easy for the developer. This shows how much you don't know about customers, and their needs. A customer gives a s**t about 5-10 times faster sites. They care if it is *fast enough*, but beyond that they don't bother. But what *always* bothers them is development time & flexibility. Because that directly affects the price they pay. And if a average man-day costs $600 (which is not expensive), and the project is of average size of a couple of man-months - well, you care about mathematics, do the math yourself what that means that FT lacks anything but a simple CGI-interface. > And I disagree that Flaming Thunder requires more brain-cycles. > Because it's based on leveraging existing English and math fluency > (which was one of the original goals of Python, was it not?), I think > that Flaming Thunder requires fewer brain-cycles because fewer brains > cells have to be devoted to memorizing language peculiarities. It does require more, because it lacks all the libs and 3rdparty-libs. And because it lacks features such as OO and other stuff, it will be harder to write these as well as use them. Show me how to beat a quickstarted TurboGears/Django webproject. *Then* you can talk business here. > Perhaps. But if elementary school students can easily understand why > one programming language gives the answer 100 (Flaming Thunder): > > Write 10^2. > > but can't understand why another programming language gives the answer > 8 (Python): > > Print 10^2 > > then I think the comparison moves beyond a matter of taste into the > realm of measurable ease-of-use. Who has conducted the research that supports that statement? And since when is ^ the better operator for "to the power of" that **? Because latex uses it? I need to see the elementary school students who use that... Even *if* that would be true, how does a perceived advantage in one field FT was explicitly created for show that it is the generally better one and understandable one for more diverse applications? Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
