Still more performance chatter (was: New to Python: Features)

[Cameron Laird]

In article <1gl6fnk.m1zq7z1fm0nhbN%aleaxit at yahoo.com>,
Alex Martelli <aleaxit at yahoo.com> wrote:
			.
			.
			.
>interoperates smoothly with Python and does "compile down to C").  If
>you don't need portability, C's speed isn't optimal anyway; psyco (a
>just-in-time optimizer for Python) can sometimes beat C by going
>directly to machine language (but it only works for intel and compatible
>CPUs, not for example for the PowerPC chips used in Apple's Mac
>computers -- that is the downside, of course).
			.
			.
			.
Moreover, "speed of language" is ill-defined.  For the 
applications that interest Alex and me, C is often con-
siderably slower than, say, Python and Lisp and Haskell,
because the executables produced by typical teams using
those latter three languages (for example) to meet fixed
requirements frequently perform *better* than the C-coded
executables produced by comparable teams meeting the same
requirements using C.