What is Python good for?

[Cameron Laird]

In article <9nnsck02uat at enews1.newsguy.com>,
Alex Martelli <aleax at aleax.it> wrote:
		.
		.
		.
>C-coded stuff is actually running in either case.  But
>if your application is heavily CPU-bound in "novel"
>ways (i.e., in ways for which nobody has yet written a
>C-coded Python extension), you may have to recode some
>small hot-spot parts of your Python solution as Python
>extensions, just like you'd have to do with Java and JNI
>(it's somewhat easier for Python, but it's still C level
>coding, unless you're fortunate enough to be able to
>use automatic wrapper generators over existing C/C++
>libraries and get the speed without the sweat -- but,
>no matter how good tools such as SWIG are, in some cases
>you'll still need to hand-tune C code if you do need
>all-out, no-compromise, 100% hardware performance).
>
>
>Alex
>
>
>

This will serve to notify Alex that he *is* read with
affection.

Note that the excerpt above was one (!) sentence.

There's abundant evidence, in my estimation, that the
mass of programmers who "hand-tune C code" *degrade* 
their applications' performance.  Alex knows this, of
course.  He also knows that C itself doesn't reach 
compromise-free "100% hardware performance".
-- 

Cameron Laird <claird at NeoSoft.com>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html