Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:29:54 +1100
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <mailman.103.1457577015.15725.python-list@python.org>
References: <mailman.238.1457265255.20602.python-list@python.org> <nbkhei$dg6$1@dont-email.me> <mailman.43.1457377845.10335.python-list@python.org> <nbknir$avu$1@dont-email.me> <mailman.49.1457383632.10335.python-list@python.org> <nbkvq2$j5s$1@dont-email.me> <mailman.7.1457395587.15725.python-list@python.org> <nbl81v$hii$1@dont-email.me> <mailman.16.1457399576.15725.python-list@python.org> <nblapf$ofi$1@dont-email.me> <mailman.28.1457405184.15725.python-list@python.org> <nbmbnp$hsi$1@dont-email.me> <mailman.45.1457453433.15725.python-list@python.org> <nbn871$8np$1@dont-email.me> <56df6761$0$1588$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <mailman.72.1457512871.15725.python-list@python.org> <nbp36e$560$1@dont-email.me> <mailman.96.1457558042.15725.python-list@python.org> <nbqaja$5g5$1@dont-email.me> <mailman.99.1457566720.15725.python-list@python.org> <nbqii7$rh4$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GoOR3VdEf7jhtsIqY0Z3keJ9Zdc=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux)
Precedence: list
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:104466

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

> But, someone had to write that Image.PNG.encode() function at some
> time. What language did they use? If it wasn't Python, then why not?

Because some operations actually need to be very fast, even at the
expense of difficult-to-maintain code in a difficult-to-use language.

> Why is it OK to let some poor sod slave away in C++ or whatever (a
> ghastly language), while others then reap the benefits writing in an
> easy 'soft' language?

Because that's the whole point of writing a small re-usable library and
maintaining it: countless gobs of badly-written imitations thereby never
need to be written.

> I've been interested for a while in broadening the scope of scripting
> languages so that less work has to be done in 'hard' ones.

Yes, that's pretty much the answer to the question you asked above.

> But the attitude in this group has been very different; Python /is/
> slow, but so what? Just a general shrug.

I'm sorry you drew that inference. Comprehensive answers – not a
“general shrug” – have in fact been given to you.

The answer boils down to the fact that there are trade-offs to be made.
One that is easy to express is that Python trades preserving valuable
programmer time, at the expense of some non-critical operations being
slightly slower.

And no, of course it's not “Python is slow”. Such a broad statement is
erxactly what gets mocking scorn in response: you need to be *much* more
specific about what is slow, under what conditions. Python is plenty
fast enough at most of the things it is used for.

> So long as /someone else/ uses the hard language to created the needed
> libraries, the speed of pure Python is irrelevant. New version of
> Python is now half the speed? Another shrug!

Citation needed. I don't know of any released version of Python that was
ever “twice as slow” – no qualifiers – than the previous release.

Make such sweeping, hand-waving statements that are trivially
demonstrated false, and yes your statements will be dismissed. With
sneers by some, and with a shrug by most.

-- 
 \       “It's easy to play any musical instrument: all you have to do |
  `\       is touch the right key at the right time and the instrument |
_o__)                        will play itself.” —Johann Sebastian Bach |
Ben Finney