Re: Native Code vs. Python code for modules

2008-08-31 Thread castironpi
On Jul 29, 10:56 pm, koblas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To that end why would somebody write big try catch blocks to see if > modules exist and if they exist alias their names.  Wouldn't it be > better if there was a way that if I have an "interface compatible" > native (aka C) module that has bet

Re: Native Code vs. Python code for modules

2008-08-31 Thread srepmub
> ShedSkinwill probably have scaling problems: as the program size > grows it may need too much time to infer all the types. The author has > the strict policy of refusing any kind of type annotation, this make > it unpractical. well, I admit I really don't like manual type annotations (unless fo

Re: Native Code vs. Python code for modules

2008-07-30 Thread alex23
On Jul 30, 11:14 pm, Sion Arrowsmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Well, the snarky response is most Python developers are too busy > >working on actual real world projects :) > > The follow-up snarky response is that working on actual real world > projects has lead Python developers to realise tha

Re: Native Code vs. Python code for modules

2008-07-30 Thread bearophileHUGS
John Nagle: > Personally, I think the Shed Skin approach > is more promising. ShedSkin will probably have scaling problems: as the program size grows it may need too much time to infer all the types. The author has the strict policy of refusing any kind of type annotation, this make it unpractical

Re: Native Code vs. Python code for modules

2008-07-30 Thread John Nagle
koblas wrote: Ruby has been getting pummeled for the last year or more on the performance subject. They've been working hard at improving it. From my arm chair perspective Python is sitting on it's laurels and not taking this as seriously as it probably should. PyPy was supposed to help,

Re: Native Code vs. Python code for modules

2008-07-30 Thread pruebauno
On Jul 29, 11:56 pm, koblas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > better if there was a way that if I have an "interface compatible" > native (aka C) module that has better performance that there could be > a way that python would give it preference. > > e.g. > > import random(version=1.2, lang=c) > or >

Re: Native Code vs. Python code for modules

2008-07-30 Thread Sion Arrowsmith
alex23 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Jul 30, 1:56=A0pm, koblas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ruby has been getting pummeled for the last year or more on the >> performance subject. =A0They've been working hard at improving it. =A0Fro= >m >> my arm chair perspective Python is sitting on it's laure

Re: Native Code vs. Python code for modules

2008-07-30 Thread Paddy
On Jul 30, 4:56 am, koblas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ruby has been getting pummeled for the last year or more on the > performance subject.  They've been working hard at improving it.  From > my arm chair perspective Python is sitting on it's laurels and not > taking this as seriously as it prob

Re: Native Code vs. Python code for modules

2008-07-29 Thread alex23
On Jul 30, 1:56 pm, koblas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ruby has been getting pummeled for the last year or more on the > performance subject.  They've been working hard at improving it.  From > my arm chair perspective Python is sitting on it's laurels and not > taking this as seriously as it prob

Native Code vs. Python code for modules

2008-07-29 Thread koblas
Ruby has been getting pummeled for the last year or more on the performance subject. They've been working hard at improving it. From my arm chair perspective Python is sitting on it's laurels and not taking this as seriously as it probably should. In general it's possible to make many comments t