Python and Flaming Thunder

[Diez B. Roggisch]

> 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.

Your bets don't count anything here. These things don't exist, so don't brag
on them being superior.

> 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.

Quite a revealing statement I'd say. And unless you don't show any
real-world site running on FT that needs things like sessions, cookies,
database-connectivity, unicode and a ton more of stuff FT doesn't support
out-of-the-box or through 3rd-party-libs, I wouldn't mention "the people"
as well. So far, *all* that you've been showing on your site regarding CGI
are toy-scripts. Nothing more.

>> 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.

This shows how much you don't know about customers, and their needs. A
customer gives a s**t about 5-10 times faster sites. They care if it is
*fast enough*, but beyond that they don't bother. But what *always* bothers
them is development time & flexibility. Because that directly affects the
price they pay.

And if a average man-day costs $600 (which is not expensive), and the
project is of average size of a couple of man-months - well, you care about
mathematics, do the math yourself what that means that FT lacks anything
but a simple CGI-interface. 

> 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.

It does require more, because it lacks all the libs and 3rdparty-libs. And
because it lacks features such as OO and other stuff, it will be harder to
write these as well as use them.

Show me how to beat a quickstarted TurboGears/Django webproject. *Then* you
can talk business here.

> 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.

Who has conducted the research that supports that statement? And since when
is ^ the better operator for "to the power of" that **? Because latex uses
it? I need to see the elementary school students who use that...

Even *if* that would be true, how does a perceived advantage in one field FT
was explicitly created for show that it is the generally better one and
understandable one for more diverse applications?


Diez