In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I wondered: >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >Alexander Schmolck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > . > . > . >>However I don't find it at all implausible to assume that had Guido known all >>the stuff that say, David Ungar and Guy Steele were aware of at the same time, >>python would have come out not necessarily less dynamic but considerably >>faster -- to its own detriment. >> >>'as > > >Alexander, you've lost me. I *think* you're proposing that, >were Guido more knowledgeable, he would have created a Python >language that's roughly as we know now, implemented it with >FASTER software ... and "to its own detriment". Do you truly >believe that fewer people would use Python if its execution >were faster?
I think I can answer my own question: yes. Since posting, I came across a different follow-up where Alexander explains that he sees healthy elements of the Python ethos--focus on a reliable, widely- used library, willingness to make Python-C partnerships, and so on--as results at least in part of early acceptance of Python as intrinsically slow. That's too interesting an argument for me to respond without more thought. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
