Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #18444
| Date | 2012-01-03 14:51 -0500 |
|---|---|
| From | Evan Driscoll <edriscoll@wisc.edu> |
| Subject | Re: python philosophical question - strong vs duck typing |
| References | <CAOFf2a0dG1tR1-2sJnqCCGqVXocqvzGScGeDJXeXwKdfdvuT-Q@mail.gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.4377.1325620313.27778.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
[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
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: python philosophical question - strong vs duck typing Evan Driscoll <edriscoll@wisc.edu> - 2012-01-03 14:51 -0500
csiph-web