Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #18444 > unrolled thread

Re: python philosophical question - strong vs duck typing

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: python philosophical question - strong vs duck typing Evan Driscoll <edriscoll@wisc.edu> - 2012-01-03 14:51 -0500

#18444 — Re: python philosophical question - strong vs duck typing

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 1/3/2012 13:13, Sean Wolfe wrote:
> What I am driving at is, if we are coding in python but looking for
> more performance, what if we had an option to 1) restrict ourselves
> somewhat by using strong typing to 2) make it easy to compile or
> convert down to C++ and thereby gain more performance.
I'm not sure it helps with compiling to C or C++ (that is neither
necessary nor sufficient for being a high performance language), but it
has the potential for helping quite a lot with performance. If you read
stuff written by evangelical Common Lisp folks, they tout CL's optional
type annotations as providing a mechanism for getting near-C-like
performance. I haven't tested that myself though.

Evan

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web