Python too slow?

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

George Sakkis a écrit :
> On Jan 11, 4:12 am, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.
> 42.desthuilli... at wtf.websiteburo.oops.com> wrote:
> 
>> George Sakkis a écrit :
>>
>>> On Jan 10, 3:37 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>>>> I fail to see how the existence of JIT compilers in some Java VM changes
>>>> anything to the fact that both Java (by language specification) and
>>>> CPython use the byte-code/VM scheme.
>>> Because these "some Java VMs" with JIT compilers are the de facto
>>> standard used by millions;
>> Repeating an argument doesn't make it more true nor more relevant. Once
>> again, this doesn't change anything to the fact exposed above.
>>
>>> the spec is pretty much irrelevant
>> I mentionned this because this kind of choice is usually not part of the
>> language spec but of a specific implementation. Java is AFAIK the only
>> language where this implementation stuff is part of the spec.
>>
>>> (unless
>>> you're a compiler writer or language theorist).
>> I thought it was quite clear and obvious that I was talking about points
>> relating to these fields.
> 
> No it wasn't,

"""
 > or is Python just too slow
 > as an interpreted language

Being "interpreted" is a quality of an implementation, not of a language.
"""

If that isn't clear enough what I'm talking about, then sorry but I 
can't help.

>  and besides the OP is most likely interested in these as
> a simple user so the distinction between a spec and a de facto
> standard implementation (such as JDK for Java and CPython for Python)
> are almost pedantic if not misleading.

I can live with being called "pedantic" - even I'm not sure whether 
correcting a wrong statement about CPython's execution model is pedantic 
or not. But I *still* fail to see how it could be "misleading", and 
*you* still fail to explain in which way it could be misleading.

If your point is that saying that CPython uses a byte-code/VM scheme 
"just like Java" necessarily implies JIT compilation just because some 
JVM support this feature, then it would be time you pay more attention 
to what is effectively written.

>  We're not Lisp (yet ;-)), with
> five major implementations and a dozen of minor ones.

And ? In which way does it make the distinction between a language and a 
language implementation less true ?