> You sound like a commercial. Get Flaming Thunder for only $19.95! It slices, it dices!
> And while programs and libraries written in assembly may be twice as fast > as programs and libraries written in C, ... It's a myth that they're only twice as fast. An experienced assembly language programmer can usually get out at least a factor of 5 by using tricks such as cache-coherence, carry flag tricks, stack manipulations, etc. > ... they're real hell to maintain. That's also a myth. For example, if C is easy to maintain, why is Flaming Thunder the only single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross compiler in the world? There should be lots of single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross compilers written in C, if C is easier to maintain. Here's one of the tricks I use: I wrote an assembly language preprocessor that takes 1 assembly language source file and generates the library code for the 8 different target platforms. That's much easier than maintaining quirky C code across 8 different platforms -- which is why GCC's support for cross-compilation is often so broken. On May 13, 10:57 am, "Andrii V. Mishkovskyi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You sound like a commercial. Is this your way of attracting costumers of FT? > > 2008/5/13 Dave Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > 5-10 times faster for what kind of code? > > > Mostly numerical analysis and CGI scripting. All of Flaming Thunder's > > library code is in assembly language, and Flaming Thunder creates > > statically-linked pure syscall CGI scripts. > > > > I don't see anything that resembles OO features of python, ... > > > 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. > > I see your assembly language libraries and raise you C language libraries. :) > Python libraries have the speed of pure C language libraries. And > while programs and libraries written in assembly may be twice as fast > as programs and libraries written in C, they're real hell to maintain. > But that doesn't stop you from telling us, that: > > > 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. > > Well, we'll see. But, IMHO, this is highly unlikely. > > > 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. > > Yeah, right, Python is sooooo slow. :) Show us some sites and programs > that were written in FT. > > > > > > 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. > > If I'm customer, than why should I care about FT? > If I'm a programmer, I'd better care about brain-cycles. > > > > > 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. > > Not everybody has grown in English-speaking community, you know. And > knowing math quite good, I prefer writing "x = y" instead of "Set x to > y". > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > 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. > > '^' is a bitwise XOR. Python uses "x**y" for raising x to power of y. > What's your point here? > > > > > > > > > On May 13, 9:50 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > -- > Wbr, Andrii Mishkovskyi. > > He's got a heart of a little child, and he keeps it in a jar on his desk.- > Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
