On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 at 11:20, Denis Kotov firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Denis Kotov writes:
See: https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxyNe_dsZKinT_RT3UGb-BaP0SnvKteo2o No thanks, if it's not text I'm not going to look at it. I don't have
time to watch videos with no explanation, and best guess is 90% of it I already know, just as I don't think you've yet written anything I didn't already know.
It is just 10-20 seconds, I used YouTube Shorts to slice it :)
So while I agree with Stephen that if someone expects me to watch a video I almost certainly won't (no matter how short) I watched this, just to make the point. And indeed, it says nothing that I (and I imagine Stephen) didn't know, and all it does is list a bunch of vulnerabilities and assert that C++ can help with these. And it's presented by Herb Sutter, so yes, I'm sure he knows what he's talking about. And indeed, I know C++ so I can confirm that C++ has idioms and language features that you can use to help with mitigating these vulnerabilities. But it's not a magic wand, you still have to write the code to use these features. You can write pure C code in C++, so there's no instant fix here, you have to **change the code** to gain the benefits you suggest.
If you don't have a *specific* explanation of how Python can be improved by rewriting it in C++, that takes into account all of the costs of such a rewrite, then you won't get anywhere here. I could just as easily say "yay, Rust is great, let's use Rust".
Or if you're that convinced, do the work. Make a fork of Python that uses C++ instead of C, demonstrate that it's (in whatever way you want to measure) "better" than the existing implementation, and be prepared to defend that position. That's what multiple people have done, when suggesting ways to speed up Python, ways to remove or mitigate the GIL, etc. That route *works*, if your argument is sound. But just saying "you should do X" and expecting people to just do the work for you is almost certainly *not* going to work.