<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 08:57, Greg Ewing <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz">greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">Nick Coghlan wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Personally, I *like* CPython fitting into the "simple-and-portable"<br>
niche in the Python interpreter space.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Me, too! I like that I can read the CPython source and<br>
understand what it's doing most of the time. Please don't<br>
screw that up by attempting to perform heroic optimisations.<br>
<br>
--<br></blockquote></div><br>Following this argument to the extreme, the bytecode evaluation code of CPython can be simplified quite a bit. Lose 2x performance but gain a lot of readability. Does that sound like a good deal? I don't intend to sound sarcastic, just show that IMHO this argument isn't a good one. I think that even clever optimized code can be properly written and *documented* to make the task of understanding it feasible. Personally, I'd love CPython to be a bit faster and see no reason to give up optimization opportunities for the sake of code readability.<br>
<br>Eli<br><br></div>