On 24/02/2018 02:05, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 19:25:35 +0000, bartc wrote:
Python is 10 times slower than a competitor = doesn't matter My language is 1.5 times slower than the big boys' = matters a great deal
As for Python's order-of-magnitude speed difference, thank you for being generous.
Actually that comparison was with a competitor, ie. another dynamic language, because I understand such languages work in different fields from the Cs and C++s.
I'm sure there must be some that are faster (years since I've looked at the field), but I vaguely had in mind mine. Although since then, CPython has gotten faster.
Note that there are JIT-based implementations now which can give very good results (other than PyPy) with dynamic languages.
My own efforts are still byte-code based so are unlikely to get any faster. But they are also very simple.
So it is quite possible to get practical work done and be a competitive, useful language despite being (allegedly) a thousand or more times slower than C.
Of course. I've been using a dynamic scripting language as an adjunct to my compiled applications since the mid 80s. Then they were crude and hopelessly slow (and machines were a lot slower too), but they could still be tremendously useful with the right balance.
But the faster they are, the more work they can take over. -- bartc -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
