Re: Is python not good enough?
In article hij24v$e7...@panix5.panix.com, Aahz a...@pythoncraft.com wrote: In article 1b42700d-139a-4653-8669-d4ee2fc48...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, ikuta liu ikut...@gmail.com wrote: Is python not good enough? for google, enhance python performance is the good way better then choose build Go language? It is not at all clear that -- despite some comments to the contrary -- the Go developers are intending to compete with Python. Go seems much more intended to compete with C++/Java. If they're successful, we may eventually see GoPython. ;-) As far as I can tell, Go was not intended to compete with anything. It was their own itch they scratched. Then they opened it to the world, which I applaud. If Go was to compete with anything, they would have give it a name that was Googleable. ;-) -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/ Groetjes Albert -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. alb...@spearc.xs4all.nl =n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
2010/1/25 Albert van der Horst alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl: If Go was to compete with anything, they would have give it a name that was Googleable. ;-) If they want it Googleable, it will be. ;-) -- Cheers, Simon B. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Simon Brunning si...@brunningonline.net wrote: 2010/1/25 Albert van der Horst alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl: If Go was to compete with anything, they would have give it a name that was Googleable. ;-) If they want it Googleable, it will be. ;-) http://www.google.com/search?q=go+language -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
On Jan 12, 7:09 am, ikuta liu ikut...@gmail.com wrote: Go language try to merge low level, hight level and browser language. Go uses := for assignment. This means, to appease the self-righteous indignation of the math professor who would claim = should mean equality... ...you gotta type a shift and 2 characters for a very common operator. Pass! -- Phlip -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
Phlip wrote: On Jan 12, 7:09 am, ikuta liu ikut...@gmail.com wrote: Go language try to merge low level, hight level and browser language. Go uses := for assignment. This means, to appease the self-righteous indignation of the math professor who would claim = should mean equality... ...you gotta type a shift and 2 characters for a very common operator. Pass! Pass?! no...Pascal! :-) -tkc -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Phlip phlip2...@gmail.com wrote: This means, to appease the self-righteous indignation of the math professor who would claim = should mean equality... Much more likely, this is part of the stated goal of making go very easy to analyse (to build tools and so that go is very fast to compile), as stated in its FAQ. cheers, David -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
On Jan 18, 6:03 pm, Phlip phlip2...@gmail.com wrote: On Jan 12, 7:09 am, ikuta liu ikut...@gmail.com wrote: Go language try to merge low level, hight level and browser language. Go uses := for assignment. Except that it doesn't. := is a declaration. s := foo is short for var s string = foo Cheers, aht -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
On Jan 18, 5:59 am, Anh Hai Trinh anh.hai.tr...@gmail.com wrote: Go uses := for assignment. Except that it doesn't. := is a declaration. Ah, and that's why Go is easy for cheap parsers to rip. Tx all! I was formerly too mortified to proceed - now I'm back in the Go camp. They fixed the hideous redundancy of Java without the ill-defined scope issues of Python Ruby, and without the tacky little 'var' of JavaScript! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:03:26 -0800, Phlip wrote: On Jan 12, 7:09 am, ikuta liu ikut...@gmail.com wrote: Go language try to merge low level, hight level and browser language. Go uses := for assignment. This means, to appease the self-righteous indignation of the math professor who would claim = should mean equality... ...you gotta type a shift and 2 characters for a very common operator. I doubt it has anything to do with the math professor. Any maths professor will tell you that, in mathematics, = is used for both assignment and equality, since in maths they are the same thing. And besides, equality testing is no less common than assignment. To appease the self-righteous indignation of the C coders, we have to type == instead of = for a very common operator. No matter what convention you use, you're going to upset some group of people. Seriously, I programmed in Pascal for many years, and typing := for assignment is not a burden. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 07:37:36 -0800, Phlip wrote: They fixed the hideous redundancy of Java without the ill-defined scope issues of Python Which ill-defined scope issues are you referring to? -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
Phlip wrote: On Jan 12, 7:09 am, ikuta liu ikut...@gmail.com wrote: Go language try to merge low level, hight level and browser language. Go uses := for assignment. This means, to appease the self-righteous indignation of the math professor who would claim = should mean equality... ...you gotta type a shift and 2 characters for a very common operator. Pass! If I were going to list what I didn't like about Go, that wouldn't be one of them! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
Paul Rubin, 17.01.2010 05:06: David Cournapeau writes: And certainly, one of the big reason for the python success is easy interface with C. Maybe interfacing with C is the real reason for holding back python implementations ? The CPython/C API is not terrible but it's not all that easy to use. For example, it's very easy to make reference counting errors. Other language FFI's that I've used avoid that problem to some extent. Other languages don't have Cython. It's true that CPython has quite a few existing C modules that would require rework if the API were to change incompatibly. quite a few sounds a bit too weak here. Some of the existing C extensions have become reasons to use Python in the first place. Think of NumPy, for example, and the whole scipy environment. Think of the performance-to-usability ratio of cElementTree and lxml. Think of the huge body of Cython code in Sage. Imagine what the set of dbm modules (or even the entire standard library) would be without external C libraries and C extensions. The C-API and the ton of modules that use it are pretty vital for Python. AFAICT, Py3 is pretty much a virgin platform when it comes to scientific computing, mostly because NumPy still wasn't adapted to the changes in the C-API. They even consider rewriting parts of it in Cython a simpler way to solve this issue than trying to port the code itself. This shows that any change to that API may have a tremendous effect on the usability of Python as a whole. But I think a different (better) API wouldn't stop people from writing new modules. Writing new modules may not be enough. Stefan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
On 1/12/2010 9:09 PM, ikuta liu wrote: I'm a little confused. Is python not good enough? for google, enhance python performance is the good way better then choose build Go language? Go language try to merge low level, hight level and browser language. Those I'd like to see it on python.. Have you not heard about the Unladen Swallow project from google? There's a new PEP coming up which will propose google's codebase to be merged with Py3k, resulting in superior performance. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
Blog blogtes...@gmail.com wrote: Have you not heard about the Unladen Swallow project from google? There's a new PEP coming up which will propose google's codebase to be merged with Py3k, resulting in superior performance. This kind of worries me for a number of reasons: * unladen is _way_ too immature and unproven a project to replace the current implementation, * Google themselves have stressed they're only concerned with improvements that benefit their use cases, such that * other benchmarks appear to perform _worse_ under unladen, and * has the project even posted substantive enough gains to warrant this change? that didn't seem to be the situation when I last checked * so far, the speed improvements have come at a cost of significantly higher memory use (i believe it was ~10 times that of CPython at one point) I dunno, I kinda feel about Unladen Swallow the exact same way I do about Go: if it wasn't a Google project, I really doubt it would be getting the attention it is (over the other performance enhancement projects: cython, psyco2, pypi et al) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
Nobody wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:34:17 -0800, John Nagle wrote: Actually, no. It's quite possible to make a Python implementation that runs fast. It's just that CPython, a naive interpreter, is too primitive to do it. I was really hoping that Google would put somebody good at compilers in charge of Python and bring it up to production speed. Look at Shed Skin, a hard-code compiler for Python A hard-code compiler for the subset of Python which can easily be compiled. Shed Skin has so many restrictions that it isn't really accurate to describe the language which it supports as Python. Hardly any real-world Python code can be compiled with Shed Skin. Some of it could be changed without too much effort, although most of that is the kind of code which wouldn't look any different if it was implemented in C++ or Java. The monomorphism restriction is likely to be particularly onerous: the type of a variable must be known at compile time; instances of subclasses are allowed, but you can only call methods which are defined in the compile-time class. If you're writing code which makes extensive use of Python's dynamicity, making it work with Shed Skin would require as much effort as re-writing it in e.g. Java, and would largely defeat the point of using Python in the first place. http://shedskin.googlecode.com/files/shedskin-tutorial-0.3.html If you want a language to have comparable performance to C++ or Java, you have to allow some things to be fixed at compile-time. There's a reason why C++ and Java support both virtual and non-virtual (final) methods. My point is that Python is a good language held back by a bad implementation. Python has gotten further with a declaration-free syntax than any other language. BASIC and JavaScript started out declaration-free, and declarations had to be retrofitted. Python has survived without them. (Yes, there are hokey extensions like Psyco declarations and decorators, but both are marginal concepts.) The key to hard-compiling Python is that you have to compile the whole program, not individual modules. You can't tell how an individual module will be used until you've seen its callers. If the compiler looks at the whole program at once, type inference has a good chance of disambiguating most type issues. If you can see the whole program at once, most dynamism can be detected. What's really needed is to detect the most common case, where objects don't have unexpected dynamism and can be implemented as hard structures. John Nagle -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
John Nagle wrote: Nobody wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:34:17 -0800, John Nagle wrote: Actually, no. It's quite possible to make a Python implementation that runs fast. It's just that CPython, a naive interpreter, is too primitive to do it. I was really hoping that Google would put somebody good at compilers in charge of Python and bring it up to production speed. Look at Shed Skin, a hard-code compiler for Python A hard-code compiler for the subset of Python which can easily be compiled. Shed Skin has so many restrictions that it isn't really accurate to describe the language which it supports as Python. Hardly any real-world Python code can be compiled with Shed Skin. Some of it could be changed without too much effort, although most of that is the kind of code which wouldn't look any different if it was implemented in C++ or Java. The monomorphism restriction is likely to be particularly onerous: the type of a variable must be known at compile time; instances of subclasses are allowed, but you can only call methods which are defined in the compile-time class. If you're writing code which makes extensive use of Python's dynamicity, making it work with Shed Skin would require as much effort as re-writing it in e.g. Java, and would largely defeat the point of using Python in the first place. http://shedskin.googlecode.com/files/shedskin-tutorial-0.3.html If you want a language to have comparable performance to C++ or Java, you have to allow some things to be fixed at compile-time. There's a reason why C++ and Java support both virtual and non-virtual (final) methods. My point is that Python is a good language held back by a bad implementation. Python has gotten further with a declaration-free syntax than any other language. BASIC and JavaScript started out declaration-free, and declarations had to be retrofitted. Python has survived without them. (Yes, there are hokey extensions like Psyco declarations and decorators, but both are marginal concepts.) The key to hard-compiling Python is that you have to compile the whole program, not individual modules. You can't tell how an individual module will be used until you've seen its callers. If the compiler looks at the whole program at once, type inference has a good chance of disambiguating most type issues. If you can see the whole program at once, most dynamism can be detected. What's really needed is to detect the most common case, where objects don't have unexpected dynamism and can be implemented as hard structures. John Nagle Of course, Guido has left the path to declarations open through the use of function argument annotation. If you wanted to write programs that reasoned about Python programs to optimize them, annotations could come in very useful. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 PyCon is coming! Atlanta, Feb 2010 http://us.pycon.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS:http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 4:17 AM, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote: Nobody wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:34:17 -0800, John Nagle wrote: Actually, no. It's quite possible to make a Python implementation that runs fast. It's just that CPython, a naive interpreter, is too primitive to do it. I was really hoping that Google would put somebody good at compilers in charge of Python and bring it up to production speed. Look at Shed Skin, a hard-code compiler for Python A hard-code compiler for the subset of Python which can easily be compiled. Shed Skin has so many restrictions that it isn't really accurate to describe the language which it supports as Python. Hardly any real-world Python code can be compiled with Shed Skin. Some of it could be changed without too much effort, although most of that is the kind of code which wouldn't look any different if it was implemented in C++ or Java. The monomorphism restriction is likely to be particularly onerous: the type of a variable must be known at compile time; instances of subclasses are allowed, but you can only call methods which are defined in the compile-time class. If you're writing code which makes extensive use of Python's dynamicity, making it work with Shed Skin would require as much effort as re-writing it in e.g. Java, and would largely defeat the point of using Python in the first place. http://shedskin.googlecode.com/files/shedskin-tutorial-0.3.html If you want a language to have comparable performance to C++ or Java, you have to allow some things to be fixed at compile-time. There's a reason why C++ and Java support both virtual and non-virtual (final) methods. My point is that Python is a good language held back by a bad implementation. Python has gotten further with a declaration-free syntax than any other language. BASIC and JavaScript started out declaration-free, and declarations had to be retrofitted. Python has survived without them. (Yes, there are hokey extensions like Psyco declarations and decorators, but both are marginal concepts.) There are efficient implementations of dynamic programming languages which do not rely on declaration (if by declaration you mean typing declaration), even when available: http://strongtalk.googlecode.com/svn/web%20site/history.html See also: http://www.avibryant.com/2008/05/those-who-misre.html David -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
David Cournapeau wrote: On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 4:17 AM, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote: Nobody wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:34:17 -0800, John Nagle wrote: Actually, no. It's quite possible to make a Python implementation that runs fast. It's just that CPython, a naive interpreter, is too primitive to do it. I was really hoping that Google would put somebody good at compilers in charge of Python and bring it up to production speed. Look at Shed Skin, a hard-code compiler for Python A hard-code compiler for the subset of Python which can easily be compiled. Shed Skin has so many restrictions that it isn't really accurate to describe the language which it supports as Python. Hardly any real-world Python code can be compiled with Shed Skin. Some of it could be changed without too much effort, although most of that is the kind of code which wouldn't look any different if it was implemented in C++ or Java. The monomorphism restriction is likely to be particularly onerous: the type of a variable must be known at compile time; instances of subclasses are allowed, but you can only call methods which are defined in the compile-time class. If you're writing code which makes extensive use of Python's dynamicity, making it work with Shed Skin would require as much effort as re-writing it in e.g. Java, and would largely defeat the point of using Python in the first place. http://shedskin.googlecode.com/files/shedskin-tutorial-0.3.html If you want a language to have comparable performance to C++ or Java, you have to allow some things to be fixed at compile-time. There's a reason why C++ and Java support both virtual and non-virtual (final) methods. My point is that Python is a good language held back by a bad implementation. Python has gotten further with a declaration-free syntax than any other language. BASIC and JavaScript started out declaration-free, and declarations had to be retrofitted. Python has survived without them. (Yes, there are hokey extensions like Psyco declarations and decorators, but both are marginal concepts.) There are efficient implementations of dynamic programming languages which do not rely on declaration (if by declaration you mean typing declaration), even when available: http://strongtalk.googlecode.com/svn/web%20site/history.html See also: http://www.avibryant.com/2008/05/those-who-misre.html Yes, that's my point. Psyco was a good first step. The big win with Psyco is that it generally can recognize when a variable is an integer or floating point number, and generate hard code for that. It doesn't do much for the rest of the language. Psyco is really a kind of JIT compiler. Those are useful, but in some ways limited. To go beyond that, global analysis is needed. A big bottleneck in Python is that too much time is spent doing dictionary lookups for things that could be bound at compile time. So the next big win is figuring out which classes definitely don't have any hidden dynamism. A global check is needed to see if any external code messes with the attributes of a class or its functions from outside the function. Most of the time, this is the case. Once that's been done, the class's module can be analyzed for optimization. If the class doesn't use setattr, etc. to add attributes to itself, then the class can be slotted, with a C++ like structure for the class members and functions. Global analysis also has to determine the class hierarchy; what inherits from what. It may be necessary to implement object as an abstract class with a huge number of virtual functions, so that duck typing will work. That's a space cost, but not a time cost. Caller/callee type inference is useful to determine the potential types of parameters. Often, analysis of all the calls to a function will determine the types of many of the paraeters. Then, those parameters can be hard-typed at compile time. You can go this far without the restrictions Shed Skin imposes, such as the restriction that lists must be homogeneous. If you do impose that restriction, array processing becomes much faster. Type inference for array elements is hard when arrays are computed from other arrays, so that's a huge simplification. Yes, you can't use eval to get at existing variables. But in Python, you don't really need to. John Nagle -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 11:43 AM, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote: David Cournapeau wrote: On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 4:17 AM, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote: Nobody wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:34:17 -0800, John Nagle wrote: Actually, no. It's quite possible to make a Python implementation that runs fast. It's just that CPython, a naive interpreter, is too primitive to do it. I was really hoping that Google would put somebody good at compilers in charge of Python and bring it up to production speed. Look at Shed Skin, a hard-code compiler for Python A hard-code compiler for the subset of Python which can easily be compiled. Shed Skin has so many restrictions that it isn't really accurate to describe the language which it supports as Python. Hardly any real-world Python code can be compiled with Shed Skin. Some of it could be changed without too much effort, although most of that is the kind of code which wouldn't look any different if it was implemented in C++ or Java. The monomorphism restriction is likely to be particularly onerous: the type of a variable must be known at compile time; instances of subclasses are allowed, but you can only call methods which are defined in the compile-time class. If you're writing code which makes extensive use of Python's dynamicity, making it work with Shed Skin would require as much effort as re-writing it in e.g. Java, and would largely defeat the point of using Python in the first place. http://shedskin.googlecode.com/files/shedskin-tutorial-0.3.html If you want a language to have comparable performance to C++ or Java, you have to allow some things to be fixed at compile-time. There's a reason why C++ and Java support both virtual and non-virtual (final) methods. My point is that Python is a good language held back by a bad implementation. Python has gotten further with a declaration-free syntax than any other language. BASIC and JavaScript started out declaration-free, and declarations had to be retrofitted. Python has survived without them. (Yes, there are hokey extensions like Psyco declarations and decorators, but both are marginal concepts.) There are efficient implementations of dynamic programming languages which do not rely on declaration (if by declaration you mean typing declaration), even when available: http://strongtalk.googlecode.com/svn/web%20site/history.html See also: http://www.avibryant.com/2008/05/those-who-misre.html Yes, that's my point. Compilation with global type inference may be a good way to speed up python, but it is not the only way. Your claim about lookups does seem to contradict how the various efficient implementations of dynamic languages work. For example, the V8 engine deal with dynamic attributes without static analysis: http://code.google.com/apis/v8/design.html So JIT may be limited, but I don't think it applies to the examples you have given. Maybe static analysis ala stalin is needed for very fast execution. I don't claim any knowledge on those technologies, but my impression is that other forces held back a fast python implementation, in particular compatibility with C extensions. For example, I know no fast implementation of dynamic languages which do not rely on garbage collection: if this is indeed true, it may mean that retrofitting a gc everywhere is needed, but doing so without breaking C extensions is hard (if at all possible ?). And certainly, one of the big reason for the python success is easy interface with C. Maybe interfacing with C is the real reason for holding back python implementations ? cheers, David -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com writes: And certainly, one of the big reason for the python success is easy interface with C. Maybe interfacing with C is the real reason for holding back python implementations ? The CPython/C API is not terrible but it's not all that easy to use. For example, it's very easy to make reference counting errors. Other language FFI's that I've used avoid that problem to some extent. It's true that CPython has quite a few existing C modules that would require rework if the API were to change incompatibly. But I think a different (better) API wouldn't stop people from writing new modules. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
On 1/16/2010 10:08 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: Compilation with global type inference may be a good way to speed up python, but it is not the only way. Your claim about lookups does seem to contradict how the various efficient implementations of dynamic languages work. For example, the V8 engine deal with dynamic attributes without static analysis: http://code.google.com/apis/v8/design.html Reading that, I notice a couple of things. 1. Like Psycho, V8 trades space for time. Given that space is now expanding more than time is shrinking, this is more sensible in general than it was a decade ago. Given Javascript programs are usually small and work with small objects, this is even more sensible for Javascript than for some Python programs. 2. It compiles to object code rather than byte code. If the only target is standard 32/64 bit Intel/AMD processors, this is quite sensible. Does V8 have, for instance, Cray versions? Guido wants the reference version to be runnable on everything with a C compiler and maintainable and upgradeable by volunteers who are not assembler experts (which I believe are getting more rare). tjr -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
Terry Reedy wrote: On 1/12/2010 10:17 AM, Krister Svanlund wrote: Their goal of making Go very fast to compile by machines somewhat conflicts with Python's goal of being fast to read by humans. Actually, no. It's quite possible to make a Python implementation that runs fast. It's just that CPython, a naive interpreter, is too primitive to do it. I was really hoping that Google would put somebody good at compilers in charge of Python and bring it up to production speed. Look at Shed Skin, a hard-code compiler for Python with automatic type inference. One guy did that. The language is fine, but the CPython implementation is obsolete. John Nagle -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:34:17 -0800, John Nagle wrote: Actually, no. It's quite possible to make a Python implementation that runs fast. It's just that CPython, a naive interpreter, is too primitive to do it. I was really hoping that Google would put somebody good at compilers in charge of Python and bring it up to production speed. Look at Shed Skin, a hard-code compiler for Python A hard-code compiler for the subset of Python which can easily be compiled. Shed Skin has so many restrictions that it isn't really accurate to describe the language which it supports as Python. Hardly any real-world Python code can be compiled with Shed Skin. Some of it could be changed without too much effort, although most of that is the kind of code which wouldn't look any different if it was implemented in C++ or Java. The monomorphism restriction is likely to be particularly onerous: the type of a variable must be known at compile time; instances of subclasses are allowed, but you can only call methods which are defined in the compile-time class. If you're writing code which makes extensive use of Python's dynamicity, making it work with Shed Skin would require as much effort as re-writing it in e.g. Java, and would largely defeat the point of using Python in the first place. http://shedskin.googlecode.com/files/shedskin-tutorial-0.3.html If you want a language to have comparable performance to C++ or Java, you have to allow some things to be fixed at compile-time. There's a reason why C++ and Java support both virtual and non-virtual (final) methods. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
On Saturday 16 January 2010 08:01 AM, Nobody wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:34:17 -0800, John Nagle wrote: Actually, no. It's quite possible to make a Python implementation that runs fast. It's just that CPython, a naive interpreter, is too primitive to do it. I was really hoping that Google would put somebody good at compilers in charge of Python and bring it up to production speed. production? Look at Shed Skin, a hard-code compiler for Python A hard-code compiler for the subset of Python which can easily be compiled. Shed Skin has so many restrictions that it isn't really accurate to describe the language which it supports as Python. +1 Hardly any real-world Python code can be compiled with Shed Skin. Some of it could be changed without too much effort, although most of that is the kind of code which wouldn't look any different if it was implemented in C++ or Java. Happy hacking. Krishnakant. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
On Jan 13, 12:55 am, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote: In article 1b42700d-139a-4653-8669-d4ee2fc48...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, ikuta liu ikut...@gmail.com wrote: Is python not good enough? for google, enhance python performance is the good way better then choose build Go language? It is not at all clear that -- despite some comments to the contrary -- the Go developers are intending to compete with Python. Go seems much more intended to compete with C++/Java. If they're successful, we may eventually see GoPython. ;-) -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/ If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair GoPython i think would be neat. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
In article 53ec94c0-dbdd-4901-a46b-d7faee121...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, johan.san...@gmail.com johan.san...@gmail.com wrote: On Jan 13, 12:55=A0am, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote: In article 1b42700d-139a-4653-8669-d4ee2fc48...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.= com, ikuta liu =A0ikut...@gmail.com wrote: Is python not good enough? for google, enhance python performance is the good way better then choose build Go language? It is not at all clear that -- despite some comments to the contrary -- the Go developers are intending to compete with Python. =A0Go seems much more intended to compete with C++/Java. =A0If they're successful, we may eventually see GoPython. =A0;-) -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 * =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http:/= /www.pythoncraft.com/ If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. =A0--Red Adair GoPython i think would be neat. Well, as soon as they restore the braces to identify the code blocks and provide the functionality of advanced statically type languages, such as threads, async processing, all synchronization primitives, garbage collection, events and GUI, i'd be willing to switch to Python. Some of it is already there. But not all. Except, before doing it, I'd like to know what Python buys me compared to say Java. -- Programmer's Goldmine collections: http://preciseinfo.org Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript, PHP, organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:06 AM, tanix ta...@mongo.net wrote: In article 53ec94c0-dbdd-4901-a46b-d7faee121...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, johan.san...@gmail.com johan.san...@gmail.com wrote: On Jan 13, 12:55=A0am, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote: In article 1b42700d-139a-4653-8669-d4ee2fc48...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.= com, ikuta liu =A0ikut...@gmail.com wrote: Is python not good enough? for google, enhance python performance is the good way better then choose build Go language? It is not at all clear that -- despite some comments to the contrary -- the Go developers are intending to compete with Python. =A0Go seems much more intended to compete with C++/Java. =A0If they're successful, we may eventually see GoPython. =A0;-) -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 * =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http:/= /www.pythoncraft.com/ If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. =A0--Red Adair GoPython i think would be neat. Well, as soon as they restore the braces to identify the code blocks and provide the functionality of advanced statically type languages, such as threads, async processing, all synchronization primitives, garbage collection, events and GUI, i'd be willing to switch to Python. Some of it is already there. But not all. Except, before doing it, I'd like to know what Python buys me compared to say Java. The lack of knowledge shown here gives me even less confidence in your Goldmine collections than before. Cheers, Chris -- http://blog.rebertia.com -- Programmer's Goldmine collections: http://preciseinfo.org Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript, PHP, organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
tanix, 13.01.2010 10:06: Well, as soon as they restore the braces to identify the code blocks and provide the functionality of advanced statically type languages, such as threads, async processing, all synchronization primitives, garbage collection, events and GUI, i'd be willing to switch to Python. Some of it is already there. But not all. Why don't you write up a proposal for the python-ideas list? Stefan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
On Jan 13, 9:06 am, ta...@mongo.net (tanix) wrote: Well, as soon as they restore the braces to identify the code blocks and provide the functionality of advanced statically type languages, such as threads, async processing, all synchronization primitives, garbage collection, events and GUI, i'd be willing to switch to Python. Some of it is already there. But not all. Except, before doing it, I'd like to know what Python buys me compared to say Java. Hey tanis. The absence of braces from Python is a thoughtful, deliberate choice. There are good reasons for it, and many people (especially people round these parts) think Python is better without braces. If you don't like it then fair enough, your preferences are your own to choose. Other than that, Python does have every single one of the things you enumerate. Regarding static versus dynamic typing - many people (especially people round these parts) believe dynamic typing to be superior to static typing in many situations. Again, personal taste seems to weigh heavily in this topic, but there are strong reasons to prefer dynamic typing - it allows you to write some programs that simply couldn't be written statically, and this greater flexibility sometimes allows you to choose algorithms and code organisation that is a better match for your problem than a statically typed language would, making your programs easier to write, shorter, and simpler to read. As for a direct comparison with Java, then perhaps the most prominent differences are that Python generally produces shorter, simpler- looking programs, which are easier to write and read. Dynamic typing is an advantage of Python in most situations. On the other hand, Python often has poorer performance than Java. My personal hypothesis is that this performance mismatch is most pronounced in small, benchmark-like data churning inner-loops, and becomes less significant for most real-world programs that have high complexity, since Python's power-through-simplicity allows developers to visualise better algorithms and refactor more easily than would otherwise be the case. Best regards, Jonathan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
On 1月13日, 上午7時55分, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote: In article 1b42700d-139a-4653-8669-d4ee2fc48...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, ikuta liu ikut...@gmail.com wrote: Is python not good enough? for google, enhance python performance is the good way better then choose build Go language? It is not at all clear that -- despite some comments to the contrary -- the Go developers are intending to compete with Python. Go seems much more intended to compete with C++/Java. If they're successful, we may eventually see GoPython. ;-) -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/ If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair Thanks for the reply. I don't think GoPython would be happen... because... http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=2382 Go is going to take the position from python and browser language (Native Client), Don't surprise Go got the interpreter in the future. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
In article mailman.901.1263452854.28905.python-l...@python.org, Dennis Lee Bieber wlfr...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:53:19 -0800 (PST), johan.san...@gmail.com johan.san...@gmail.com declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general: GoPython i think would be neat. As long as it doesn't get called GoPy (too easy to pronounce as goopy) :--} You guys are funny, I tellya. -- Programmer's Goldmine collections: http://preciseinfo.org Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript, PHP, organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Is python not good enough?
I'm a little confused. Is python not good enough? for google, enhance python performance is the good way better then choose build Go language? Go language try to merge low level, hight level and browser language. Those I'd like to see it on python.. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
ikuta liu, 12.01.2010 16:09: I'm a little confused. Is python not good enough? for google, enhance python performance is the good way better then choose build Go language? Go language try to merge low level, hight level and browser language. Those I'd like to see it on python.. I think everyone's free to put resources into the creation of new programming languages. Google has enough money to put it into all sorts of things without the need to have them pay off. Stefan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
Every language has it uses and Google obviously thought that it would take more resources to get Python to the level they need it than to start using Go. Python is great for alot of things but it's not perfect for anything. On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:09 PM, ikuta liu ikut...@gmail.com wrote: I'm a little confused. Is python not good enough? for google, enhance python performance is the good way better then choose build Go language? Go language try to merge low level, hight level and browser language. Those I'd like to see it on python.. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
[please don't top-post] Krister Svanlund wrote: On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:09 PM, ikuta liu ikut...@gmail.com wrote: I'm a little confused. Is python not good enough? for google, enhance python performance is the good way better then choose build Go language? Go language try to merge low level, hight level and browser language. Those I'd like to see it on python.. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list Every language has it uses and Google obviously thought that it would take more resources to get Python to the level they need it than to start using Go. Python is great for alot of things but it's not perfect for anything. s/anything/everything/ ~Ethan~ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
On 1/12/2010 10:17 AM, Krister Svanlund wrote: Every language has it uses and Google obviously thought that it would take more resources to get Python to the level they need it than to start using Go. 'Google' does not think. Go builds on previous works by the main developers. I doubt that they even considered trying to upgrade Python and in particular, its generators, to accomplish the parallel processing goals. Their goal of making Go very fast to compile by machines somewhat conflicts with Python's goal of being fast to read by humans. Terry Jan Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is python not good enough?
In article 1b42700d-139a-4653-8669-d4ee2fc48...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, ikuta liu ikut...@gmail.com wrote: Is python not good enough? for google, enhance python performance is the good way better then choose build Go language? It is not at all clear that -- despite some comments to the contrary -- the Go developers are intending to compete with Python. Go seems much more intended to compete with C++/Java. If they're successful, we may eventually see GoPython. ;-) -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/ If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
