Python and Flaming Thunder

[Dave Parker]

> 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.  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.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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