python simply not scaleable enough for google?
rami.chowdhury at gmail.com
Thu Nov 12 20:42:05 CET 2009
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:24:18 -0800, Alf P. Steinbach <alfps at start.no>
> * Rami Chowdhury:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:32:28 -0800, Alf P. Steinbach <alfps at start.no>
>>> This also seems religious. It's like in Norway it became illegal to
>>> market lemon soda, since umpteen years ago it's soda with lemon
>>> flavoring. This has to do with the *origin* of the citric acid,
>>> whether natural or chemist's concoction, no matter that it's the same
>>> chemical. So, some people think that it's wrong to talk about
>>> interpreted languages, hey, it should be a "language designed for
>>> interpretation", or better yet, "dynamic language", or bestest,
>>> "language with dynamic flavor". And slow language, oh no, should be
>>> "language whose current implementations are perceived as somewhat slow
>>> by some (well, all) people", but of course, that's just silly.
>> Perhaps I'm missing the point of what you're saying but I don't see
>> unarguably a dynamic language, yet Chrome / Safari 4 / Firefox 3.5 all
>> compiled? What about Common Lisp, which is a compiled language when
>> it's run with CMUCL or SBCL?
> Yeah, you missed it.
> Blurring and coloring and downright hiding reality by insisting on
> misleading but apparently more precise terminology for some vague
> concept is a popular sport, and chiding others for using more practical
> and real-world oriented terms, can be effective in politics and some
> other arenas.
> But in a technical context it's silly. Or dumb. Whatever.
> E.g. you'll find it impossible to define interpretation rigorously in
> the sense that you're apparently thinking of.
Well, sure. Can you explain, then, what sense you meant it in?
> You'll also find it impossible to rigorously define "dynamic language"
> in a general way so that that definition excludes C++. <g>
Or, for that matter, suitably clever assembler. I'm not arguing with you
> So, to anyone who understands what one is talking about, "interpreted",
> or e.g. "slow language" (as was the case here), conveys the essence.
Not when the context isn't clear, it doesn't.
> And to anyone who doesn't understand it trying to be more precise is an
> exercise in futility and pure silliness -- except for the purpose of
Or for the purpose of greater understanding, surely - and isn't that the
"Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity" --
408-597-7068 (US) / 07875-841-046 (UK) / 0189-245544 (BD)
More information about the Python-list