Paul Rubin a écrit :
"James Mills" <prolo...@shortcircuit.net.au> writes:
Python is a dynamic object oriented language ... (almost verbatim
from the website). It is compiled to bytecode and run on a virtual
machine.
1. There is nothing inherent about dynamic languages that prevents
them from being compiled. There are compiled implementations of
Lisp and Scheme that beat the pants off of Python in performance.
Yes. If you're really that concerned about Python's performances, you
may want to contribute to Pypy.
2. There is also nothing inherent in a dynamic OO language that says
that class descriptors have to be mutable,
Nope, but that's how Python is designed, and we are quite a few here
that value this more than raw perfs.
any more than strings have
to be mutable (Python has immutable strings). I agree that being able
to modify class descriptors at runtime is sometimes very useful. The
feature shouldn't be eliminated from Python or else it wouldn't be
Python any more. But those occasions are rare enough that having to
enable the feature by saying (e.g.) "@dynamic" before the class
definition doesn't seem like a problem,
This imply that you (as the library author) pretend to know by advance
when your users (programmers) will have a need for dynamism and when
they won't. Fact is : you never know. It's the same old horse as
enforcing access restriction : the net result is that you prevent users
(which, I repeat, are programmers) to use your library as they see fit.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
