Python and Flaming Thunder

[Diez B. Roggisch]

> Also, several users have rewritten their Python programs in Flaming
> Thunder, and found that Flaming Thunder was 5 to 10 times faster
> (Flaming Thunder compiles to native executables).  So again, since
> many people value their time at more than $0, I think that many people
> will find that Flaming Thunder is worth $19.95 per year.

5-10 times faster for what kind of code? I don't see anything that resembles
OO features of python, let alone more advanced concepts like
meta-programming, higher-order functions and such. Which save tremendous
amounts of time coding. If FT grows these and *still* is 5-10 times faster,
I'll salut you.

And what is really expensive is brain-cycles, not cpu-cycles. Which above
described features save.
 
> Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more
> motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python.  This weekend,
> Python users will still be debating how to fix awkwardnesses in the
> languages (such as FOR loops where you're just counting the loops and
> not referencing the loop variable) -- but Flaming Thunder users will
> be getting work done using the REPEAT n TIMES constructs that I'll be
> implementing.
> 
> Python has been around about 15 years, yet still has those
> awkwardnesses.  Flaming Thunder has been out less than 6 months and
> those awkwardnesses are already getting fixed.  The difference: I
> can't afford to ignore users.

Oh *please*! Try getting nearly as feature & library complete as python is
today - and *then* I'll point to all the akwardness of FT. Let alone it is
very much a question of view-point if two different looping constructs or
keywords are more awkward than one general looping-concept with only one
keyword. It's a matter of taste.

Diez