Python and Flaming Thunder

[Dave Parker]

> You sound like a commercial.

Get Flaming Thunder for only $19.95!  It slices, it dices!

> And while programs and libraries written in assembly may be twice as fast
> as programs and libraries written in C, ...

It's a myth that they're only twice as fast.  An experienced assembly
language programmer can usually get out at least a factor of 5 by
using tricks such as cache-coherence, carry flag tricks, stack
manipulations, etc.

> ... they're real hell to maintain.

That's also a myth.  For example, if C is easy to maintain, why is
Flaming Thunder the only single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross compiler in
the world?  There should be lots of single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross
compilers written in C, if C is easier to maintain.

Here's one of the tricks I use:  I wrote an assembly language
preprocessor that takes 1 assembly language source file and generates
the library code for the 8 different target platforms.  That's much
easier than maintaining quirky C code across 8 different platforms --
which is why GCC's support for cross-compilation is often so broken.

On May 13, 10:57 am, "Andrii V. Mishkovskyi" <misho... at gmail.com>
wrote:
> You sound like a commercial. Is this your way of attracting costumers of FT?
>
> 2008/5/13 Dave Parker <davepar... at flamingthunder.com>:
>
> > > 5-10 times faster for what kind of code?
>
> >  Mostly numerical analysis and CGI scripting.  All of Flaming Thunder's
> >  library code is in assembly language, and Flaming Thunder creates
> >  statically-linked pure syscall CGI scripts.
>
> >  > I don't see anything that resembles OO features of python, ...
>
> >  True.  But in Python, you don't see statically-linked pure-syscall CGI
> >  scripts being cross-compiled under Windows for ftp'ing up to a Linux
> >  server.  And you don't see the speed of pure assembly language
> >  libraries.
>
> I see your assembly language libraries and raise you C language libraries. :)
> Python libraries have the speed of pure C language libraries. And
> while programs and libraries written in assembly may be twice as fast
> as programs and libraries written in C, they're real hell to maintain.
> But that doesn't stop you from telling us, that:
>
> >  And I'll be willing to bet that Flaming Thunder will have
> >  OO features similar to Python before Python has the features that
> >  Flaming Thunder already does.
>
> Well, we'll see. But, IMHO, this is highly unlikely.
>
> >  For many people, being 5 to 10 times faster at numerical analysis and
> >  CGI scripting is reason enough to pay $19 per year.  But maybe for
> >  other people, having slow, inefficient programs and websites is
> >  acceptable.
>
> Yeah, right, Python is sooooo slow. :) Show us some sites and programs
> that were written in FT.
>
>
>
> >  > And what is really expensive is brain-cycles, not cpu-cycles.
>
> >  Depends on whether you're the programmer, or the customer.  I've found
> >  that customers prefer products that are 5 to 10 times faster, instead
> >  of products that were easy for the developer.
>
> If I'm customer, than why should I care about FT?
> If I'm a programmer, I'd better care about brain-cycles.
>
>
>
> >  And I disagree that Flaming Thunder requires more brain-cycles.
> >  Because it's based on leveraging existing English and math fluency
> >  (which was one of the original goals of Python, was it not?), I think
> >  that Flaming Thunder requires fewer brain-cycles because fewer brains
> >  cells have to be devoted to memorizing language peculiarities.
>
> Not everybody has grown in English-speaking community, you know. And
> knowing math quite good, I prefer writing "x = y" instead of "Set x to
> y".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >  > 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.
>
> >  Perhaps.  But if elementary school students can easily understand why
> >  one programming language gives the answer 100 (Flaming Thunder):
>
> >   Write 10^2.
>
> >  but can't understand why another programming language gives the answer
> >  8 (Python):
>
> >   Print 10^2
>
> >  then I think the comparison moves beyond a matter of taste into the
> >  realm of measurable ease-of-use.
>
> '^' is a bitwise XOR. Python uses "x**y" for raising x to power of y.
> What's your point here?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >  On May 13, 9:50 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <de... at nospam.web.de> wrote:
> >  > > 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
>
> >  --
> >  http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
> --
> Wbr, Andrii Mishkovskyi.
>
> He's got a heart of a little child, and he keeps it in a jar on his desk.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -