Python too slow?

[Chris Mellon]

On Jan 11, 2008 9:10 AM, George Sakkis <george.sakkis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

The statement was in response to a claim that Python was slow because
it is interpreted. This is a little like correcting someone who says
that a Yugo is slow because it has a steam engine by telling that no,
it's internal combustion, just like the BMW has.

It's possible for this a claim like this to lead to a clarifying and
informative discussion about JIT technology and how it improves Javas
performance, and the use of corresponding techniques in Python. What
we got instead was someone who felt some sort of juvenile urge to jump
all over a what he thought of as a claim that Python is as fast as
Java (which, of course, it sometimes is - the issue is more
complicated than a sound bite).

> > >  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.

Not that I think any of you care about anything except your e-penis at
this point, but there is no reason to proscribe discussion to only
what "plain users" want, even if the OP was such a person.