On 14/02/2021 00:19, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 11:14 AM Mr Flibble
<flib...@i42.removethisbit.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/02/2021 23:30, Igor Korot wrote:
Hi,
But most importantly - what is the reason for this ?
I mean - what problems the actual python compiler produce?
Thank you.
I am creating neos as I need a performant scripting engine for my other major project
"neoGFX" and I want to be able to support multiple popular scripting languages
including Python.
Until you have actually produced a (mostly) compatible Python
implementation, can you please stop making these repeated and baseless
jabs at CPython's performance? You keep stating or hinting that
CPython is somehow unnecessarily slow, but unless you have some code
to back your claims, this is nothing but mudslinging.
CPython is not as slow as you might think. And PyPy is highly
efficient at what it does well. Show us that you can do better than
these before you call them slow.
At the absolute least, show that you have something that can run Python code.
It isn't just me that is saying CPython is egregiously slow: it is at the
bottom of the list as far as performance is concerned. Python is undoubtedly
the biggest contributor to climate change of all the programming languages in
mainstream use today.
See:
https://thenewstack.io/which-programming-languages-use-the-least-electricity/
/Flibble
--
😎
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
