Peter Hansen wrote: > David Rasmussen wrote: > > Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote: > >>From the speed requirement: Is that correspondance chess by any chance?? > > > > Regular chess at tournament time controls requires speed too. Any pure > > Python chess program would lose badly to the best C/C++ programs out > > there now. > > > > I would also like to see Half Life 2 in pure Python. > > True, but so what? Why did you suddenly change the discussion to > require "pure" Python? And please define "pure" Python, given that the > interpreter and many builtins, not to mention many widely used extension > modules, are coded in C? And are you not allowed to use any of the > performance-boosting techniques available for Python, like Pyrex or > Psyco? Why such restrictions, when these are things Python programs use > on a daily basis: these are *part* of Python, as much as the -O switch > on the compiler is part of C/C++. > > Okay, let's compare a "pure" Python program (if you can define it in any > meaningful, practical way) with a "pure" Java program, running on a > non-JIT interpreter and with optimizations turned off (because, of > course, those optimizations are umm... somehow.. not "pure"...?). > > Judging by the other posts in this thread, the gauntlet is down: Python > is faster than Java. Let those who believe otherwise prove their point > with facts, and without artificially handcuffing their opponents with > non-real-world "purity" requirements. > > -Peter
That form of argument is listed as one of the principal forms of illogical thinking in "Being Logical" D.Q.McInerny - "An Inability to Disprove Does Not Prove" "The fact that there is no concrete proof against a position does not constitute an argument in favour of the position. I cannot claim to be right simply because you can't prove me to be wrong." -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list