Python too slow?

[George Sakkis]

On Jan 11, 8:59 am, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.
42.desthuilli... at wtf.websiteburo.oops.com> wrote:
> 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.

Pedantic once again. For languages with a single (or practically
single) implementation such as Python, the average user couldn't care
less about the distinction. Your point might have more merit if
PyPy or IronPython or Jython enter the same league with CPython in
terms of usage.

> >  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.

What three different people in this thread have been trying to tell
you but you seem to miss is that claiming CPython's VM "is just like
Java" is comparable to saying "a Yugo's car engine is just like a
BMW's" (or "humans are just like chimpanzees"), which for some value
of "just like" is technically correct but it's not what most people
would call an accurate statement.

> >  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 ?

In the way that most plain users care (or not) about.

George