Anyone looked at pike?

Markus Stenberg mstenber at cc.Helsinki.FI
Mon Nov 29 07:30:39 CET 1999


kaleissin at nvg.org (Kaleissin) writes:
> Specifically: why they claim it's faster?

Shrug.. see below.

> http://pike.idonex.se/manual/tutorial/tut_introduction.html#introduction.3
> 
> Though, why anyone would want Yet Another C-Like Syntax is beyond me...<wink>

* It has static typing (which is much faster than dynamic used in Python,
* AFAIK)

Also, I'm not sure about how it's binding works and so on - but it seems to
be mostly "glue on top of C++" approach, not really dynamically
typed/late-bound language like Python. I personally would rather use C++(*)
really. Of course, I haven't been exposed for long. :)

I really wonder about similarities they mentioned on that page. It seemed
to me that it looked a lot more Perl-ish than Python-esque. Hmm. Maybe it
was all those braces and C(++) jargon they used.

> tal.

-Markus

P.S.
	from one example..

void find_song(string title)
{
	string name, song;
	.. (snip)
	if (string song=records[name][title])
            ^^^^^^ looks downright perverted to me :P

(*)
	I rather commit ritual suicide than code C++ in prolonged fashion.
	And I even (sort of) like C :P

-- 
The IBM Principle:		  
	Machines should work.  People should think.
The Truth About the IBM Principle:
	Machines don't often work, people don't often think.




More information about the Python-list mailing list