Is this make sence? Dynamic assembler for python

[DivX]

On 20 lip, 12:57, DivX <sem.r... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 lip, 12:46, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
>
>
>
>
>
> cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 03:19:48 -0700, DivX wrote:
> > > On 20 lip, 02:52, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
> > > cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> > [...]
> > >> I think that mixing assembly and python is a gimmick of very little
> > >> practical significance. If you really need the extra performance, check
> > >> out PyPy, Cython, Pyrex and Psyco.
>
> > >> --
> > >> Steven
>
> > > I can agree with you about most of the arguments, but why he continues
> > > to developing it. What he sees and we do not see?
>
> > Why ask us? You should ask him.
>
> > --
> > Steven
>
> Be sure I will ask him, but before, I wanted to know your opinions
> about it. Hear arguments on both sides...

Where I wrote that he was my friend? But that is not the point, I send
him a mail and here is answer:

"I know that writing assembly code is hard but when you want some
simple algorithm like algorithms in image processing or in digital
signal processing you must write functions in C and then write wrapper
to call that from python because it’s slow to do all work from python.
And then if you want to support windows and Linux you will spend more
time about compiling and see if everything works correctly than on
algorithms.

Another thing is that when you have assembler now you can write some
small C compiler so that you don’t have to write assembly language.
It’s doesn’t matter if gcc will produce better code it’s enough to
achieve speed that you are satisfied  and you don’t have to worry
about how to write extensions for Python.

Also many people use intrinsic functions to achieve more speed when
they need. I think programming using intrinsic functions is like using
sse instructions directly.

Best regards,

Tahir"

So, thanks people for your opinions and arguments...